Industrial Waste or By-product? CPCB’s Framework and UPPCB’s 2026 Directions Explained

A material can be useful to another factory and still remain a regulated waste. That distinction sits at the centre of the Central Pollution Control Board’s framework for identifying materials generated from industrial processes as wastes or by-products. Commercial value, a purchase order or a description on an invoice does not, by itself, settle the classification.

For an industrial unit, the practical question is whether the material’s origin, composition, proposed use and environmental implications support recognition through the applicable regulatory process. Until that process and the necessary permissions are complete, changing the label in a sales document cannot substitute for a regulatory decision.

The document examined here contains the September 2019 CPCB framework, a later CPCB direction and an Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board office memorandum dated 22 May 2026. Read together, they explain both the assessment criteria and the administrative steps for applying them. Read UPPCB’s memorandum and annexures.

What the attached document actually contains

The first two pages are UPPCB’s 2026 office memorandum. Annexure I reproduces the 2019 framework; Annexure II contains the application format; Annexure III provides a status-reporting format; and Annexure IV reproduces CPCB’s direction dated 25 November 2024, followed by board lists.

This matters because the September 2019 date identifies the framework’s edition. It does not date the entire compilation. Nor is the framework itself a fresh Gazette amendment issued in 2026. UPPCB’s memorandum applies an existing framework to units covered by the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, referred to here as the HOWM Rules.

Three different documents therefore need to be kept distinct: the statutory rules, the technical framework and the later implementation directions. A reader assessing a particular material should also check subsequent amendments, specific clarifications and the conditions in the unit’s permissions.

The history: from the 2008 rules to implementation in 2026

The 2016 rules established the statutory starting point

The original HOWM Rules were notified through G.S.R. 395(E), dated 4 April 2016. They superseded the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, with a savings provision for earlier actions or omissions. Download the original 2016 Gazette.

The relevant definition links by-product status to a material arising unintentionally during production of the intended product and being used in that form. CPCB’s subsequent framework addresses the suitability of that use. It asks how a claim should be assessed when the material may contain contaminants, change in quality or create risks downstream.

The 2019 framework responded to a classification problem

The framework attributes its preparation to the National Green Tribunal’s order dated 12 April 2019 in Original Application 804/2017, Rajiv Narayan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. CPCB’s later direction records circulation of the framework to State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees on 23 September 2019.

The concern was practical: misclassifying waste as a by-product could remove material from scrutiny without establishing safe use. Conversely, treating a genuine by-product as waste could impose unnecessary requirements. The framework develops a structured assessment instead of leaving that distinction to the generator’s commercial description. Download CPCB’s September 2019 framework.

The 2021 amendment changed relevant statutory wording

G.S.R. 798(E), dated 12 November 2021, revised “other wastes” and Rule 9. Domestic other-waste coverage refers to wastes notified from time to time; the substituted utilisation provisions concern hazardous waste. The 2019 framework must therefore be read with the amended rules. Read the 2021 amendment.

The 2024 directions focused on implementation

CPCB’s 25 November 2024 direction, issued under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, records implementation concerns raised in a separate NGT proceeding, OA 502/2023. It refers to a common application form communicated on 2 April 2024 and a reporting format communicated on 12 July 2024.

Its operative requirements address the pollution boards: apply the criteria, constitute the specified Technical Expert Committees where needed, use the common form, instruct field teams to check classifications, report implementation status and provide information on materials classified as by-products and their annual quantities.

The acknowledgement period and 5 December 2024 compliance-report date in that direction belong to this historical board-level instruction. They should not be presented as a new application deadline for every industry in 2026.

UPPCB’s May 2026 memorandum addresses covered units

UPPCB’s memorandum asks covered units to identify materials being utilised as by-products and follow CPCB’s framework when claiming that status. It directs the necessary application to be made using the approved format available through the board’s website. It also reiterates inspection and reporting requirements arising from CPCB’s direction.

These documents establish a progression from definitions to technical assessment, standardised applications and implementation. They do not establish that every application has been accepted or that every material described by an industry as a by-product has been regularised.

What makes a material a credible by-product candidate?

CPCB’s framework treats origin and intended use as starting points. It then examines feasibility, environmental impacts and risks. A possible market helps explain the proposed use, but the decision also depends on what the material contains and what happens when it enters the receiving process.

The eight guiding factors in Section 7 address the definition, known constituents and concentrations, suitability without special purification or pre-processing compared with the substituted raw material, relevant specifications, established demand, effects on emissions and waste generation, environmental risks at end use, and effects on the market of the substituted product.

The framework refers to Bureau of Indian Standards specifications or other prescribed standards where relevant. It does not give every residue a single universal purity threshold. The appropriate evidence depends on the material, the process it comes from and the product or input it is intended to replace.

A useful way to read these factors is to connect three questions. Can the material perform the proposed function? Can it do so under the relevant standards and permissions? Can it do so without transferring unacceptable contamination or risk to another process, product or environmental pathway?

How the classification process works

First establish whether production is intentional

Step 1 examines the production process. If the material is intended to be produced, the framework treats it as a product at this stage. If it arises unintentionally during production and by-product status is claimed, the assessment proceeds further. This initial distinction does not independently authorise a process or its emissions.

A process description should therefore explain the intended product, raw materials, reactions or operations, and the point at which the claimed material arises. Calling the same stream a product in one document and a residue in another leaves an important question unanswered.

Screen the schedules before choosing an application route

Step 2 checks Schedules III, IV and VI of the HOWM Rules. Under the framework’s stated route, a material appearing in those schedules is treated as hazardous or other waste. If it does not appear there, the next step examines Column 3 of Schedule I.

The Schedule I assessment then links the material to the generating process. Where the relevant generating project or activity requires environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, the framework provides an environmental-clearance branch. Other cases proceed through the board-led assessment described below.

This is a reading of the framework’s sequence. It should be applied alongside the currently applicable schedules and any later material-specific instrument. Absence from one list is not, by itself, recognition as a by-product.

Prepare a pre-feasibility study and obtain appraisal

For the board-led route, the generator prepares a pre-feasibility study covering possible end uses and submits the application to the relevant State Pollution Control Board or Pollution Control Committee, abbreviated SPCB/PCC.

The board examines the application and the status of relevant consents and authorisation before technical appraisal. The Technical Expert Committee, or TEC, evaluates feasibility. Where the proposal is found feasible, the framework provides for terms of reference for environmental impact and risk assessment studies and preparation of a Safety Data Sheet, or SDS.

The sequence continues through submission, appraisal and a final decision. A favourable preliminary discussion should not be represented as the final acceptance of a material. The framework also identifies an environmental-clearance route for the specified Schedule I cases; that branch should not be omitted from an explanatory guide.

Complete the applicable permission changes

The framework states that recognised by-product status becomes applicable and enforceable only after the necessary grant or amendment of environmental clearance, where applicable, and the relevant consents under the Water and Air Acts. Until then, the earlier classification and prescribed disposal mechanism remain applicable.

Its concluding section also requires quantity and end use to be specified in the amended clearance or consent. A classification decision should therefore be read together with the permission documents that give it operational scope. See Sections 6–8 of the framework.

What the application needs to demonstrate

Annexure II in UPPCB’s compilation is useful because it brings the assessment into a document that an applicant can work through. It seeks information on the unit, process, existing permissions, material characteristics, quantity, proposed uses, feasibility and environmental implications.

The underlying framework’s appendices expand the technical questions. They cover process flows, composition, potential contaminants, demand and supply, characteristics of the product being replaced, economic feasibility, pollution-control implications and environmental impact and risk assessment. A file that supplies only a laboratory result leaves much of this assessment unfinished.

For internal preparation, organise the evidence around the material’s complete journey. Identify where it arises; explain how it is collected and stored; describe the receiving process; and account for constituents that may enter the finished product, emissions, wastewater or further residues. Where a fact is uncertain, describe the evidence gap rather than filling it with an assumption.

The SDS should reflect the actual material and the proposed handling conditions. It supports hazard communication; it does not replace technical appraisal, laboratory characterisation or a classification decision. Similarly, a process flow diagram becomes useful when it connects to the quantities and characteristics in the application.

Annexure III serves a different purpose. It records status of identification, including applications and quantities generated and used. It should not be confused with the generator’s application in Annexure II. Keeping these functions separate makes the document easier to understand and reduces mistaken reporting advice.

The framework’s footnotes identify a NABET-accredited agency, under the Quality Council of India, for the specified studies. Check the relevant accreditation scope when arranging the work. The study’s purpose is to answer the material and end-use questions in the prescribed appraisal, rather than provide a generic environmental profile.

Useful waste and recognised by-product are different routes

The framework also discusses utilisation under Rule 9. Hazardous waste can be used as a resource through the applicable authorisation and CPCB procedure, taking account of the amended Rule 9. Beneficial use therefore does not necessarily require, or establish, by-product status. A proposal should identify which route is actually being pursued and retain the controls that apply to it.

Read Section 4.4 and the assessment steps.

Why later material-specific clarifications matter

MoEFCC’s 6 December 2024 hydrochloric-acid (HCl) clarification permits conditional consideration, including purity of 32% and above, supply to end users rather than traders, GPS tracking and quarterly reporting. It is not automatic recognition. Read the HCl clarification.

A separate clarification of the same date distinguishes case-by-case spent-acid applications from linear alkyl benzene sulphonic acid (LABSA) processes from non-LABSA study provisions. It does not reclassify all spent acid. Read the spent sulphuric-acid clarification.

These developments are relevant history because they prevent an oversimplified reading of the general framework. Specific conditions need to be read for the actual material and process. An allowance for one stream or end use should not be copied into a different stream’s assessment.

A later statutory development is G.S.R. 438(E), dated 1 July 2025, which inserts an extended producer responsibility chapter for non-ferrous metal scrap and commences on 1 April 2026. It is a separate instrument from the by-product framework. Download the Gazette amendment.

CPCB’s technical-guidelines page continues to list the 2019 framework in the sources reviewed for this article. UPPCB’s 2026 memorandum also applies it. No general replacement was located in the official sources searched; that finding is limited to the reviewed material and is not a declaration that no material-specific change exists. Check CPCB’s guidelines index.

A July 2026 amendment changes a schedule entry

G.S.R. 636(E), dated 16 July 2026, omits entry 16.3, “Brine sludge”, under production of caustic soda and chlorine in Schedule I. It commences on Gazette publication. Removing that entry does not itself recognise a by-product or remove other applicable hazardous-characteristic tests. Read the 2026 amendment.

Where otherwise promising claims can become weak

Consider a hypothetical factory proposing to supply an unintended process residue directly to another manufacturer. The recipient may have a genuine use and may be willing to pay. Those facts explain the commercial proposal; they do not answer whether impurities vary between batches or affect the recipient’s emissions and product quality.

Suppose the file identifies a single satisfactory sample but does not explain how that sample represents routine production. A sensible technical question is how changes in raw materials or operating conditions affect composition. This is an assessment question, not a presumption that the material is necessarily hazardous.

Another weak point is an incomplete end-use description. A generic statement that the material is suitable for industry says little about the receiving process, controls or finished product. The proposed use should be precise enough for the authority to assess the relevant pathways and conditions.

Finally, an approval should not be assumed to cover surplus, expired or off-specification material requiring disposal. The framework expressly discusses that situation. Storage and dispatch records should help distinguish approved use from material that no longer meets the conditions supporting the claim.

A practical review before making the claim

The following is a preparation checklist drawn from the framework, not a promise of approval or a new statutory deadline:

• Confirm the material’s origin, generating process and relevant schedule entries.
• Compare the proposed use with the applicable standards and any material-specific clarification.
• Assemble representative characterisation, feasibility, demand and receiving-process evidence.
• Check the applicable TEC or environmental-clearance route and current board application requirements.
• Reconcile the decision with consent, clearance and authorisation conditions before changing handling practices.
• Keep quantity, destination, end-use and quality records that can support inspection and subsequent review.

The value of this exercise is that it makes a claim assessable. It connects the material’s commercial usefulness with the evidence needed to understand its environmental consequences.

Frequently asked questions

Does selling a residue make it a by-product?

No. Sale establishes a transaction, not the classification. The framework also examines the production process, composition, proposed use, feasibility, environmental impacts and the applicable regulatory decision.

Is the attached file only the 2019 framework?

It is a compilation led by UPPCB’s 22 May 2026 office memorandum. It includes CPCB’s September 2019 framework, application and reporting formats, and the November 2024 direction. These instruments have different dates and functions.

Can a unit decide the classification through self-declaration?

Self-description does not complete the framework’s assessment. The applicable route includes appraisal and a competent authority’s decision, together with the required permission changes. The correct route depends on the material and generating process.

Is a Safety Data Sheet sufficient?

No. An SDS supports information on hazards and handling. The framework separately addresses pre-feasibility, impact and risk studies, appraisal and permissions. A generic SDS cannot establish the actual material’s suitability for a proposed end use.

Can the old waste-handling route stop when an application is filed?

Filing is not acceptance. The framework keeps the earlier classification and prescribed disposal mechanism applicable until the necessary decision and clearance or consent changes take effect. Check the unit’s actual permission documents.

Do the acid clarifications cover every industrial residue?

No. They concern specified acid streams and conditions. They demonstrate the need to check later material-specific instruments, not a general permission to market all industrial residues as by-products.

What should be checked when quality or the receiving use changes?

Compare the change with the accepted material characteristics and permission conditions. The framework discusses surplus, expired and off-specification material requiring disposal. A changed use should not be presumed covered by an earlier assessment.

Sources and further reading

1. UPPCB Office Memorandum dated 22 May 2026, with Annexures I–IV — Open / save original PDF
2. CPCB framework: industrial processes as wastes or by-products, September 2019 — Open / save original PDF
3. Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules 2016, G.S.R. 395(E) — Open / save original PDF
4. MoEFCC clarification on hydrochloric acid as by-product/co-product — Open / save original PDF
5. MoEFCC clarification on spent sulphuric acid from LABSA and non-LABSA processes — Open / save original PDF
6. HOWM Amendment Rules 2025, G.S.R. 438(E), non-ferrous metal scrap — Open / save original PDF
7. CPCB technical guidelines index — Official webpage
8. HOWM Second Amendment Rules 2021, G.S.R. 798(E) — Open / save original PDF
9. HOWM Amendment Rules 2026, G.S.R. 636(E), Schedule I brine-sludge entry — Open / save original PDF