As per the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in India, which one of the following statements is correct?

Specifies an explicit duty: every waste generator shall segregate and store waste in three separate streams (bio-degradable, non-bio-degradable and domestic hazardous).

A student could compare this explicit 'three-stream' rule against the claim of 'five categories' and treat the claim as suspect unless other rule text shows an expansion to five.

Gives an example for large generators where segregation is into four streams for construction/demolition waste (concrete, soil, steel, wood and plastics, bricks and mortar).

Shows that category counts vary by generator type and waste-type, so a student could infer the national rule may specify different streams for different generators rather than a universal five-category requirement.

Provides a separate, broader classification of solid wastes into three categories (municipal, hospital, hazardous).

Reinforces that multiple three-category schemes exist in materials on waste, supporting the idea that 'three' is a common organizing principle and that 'five' would need explicit support in the Rules.

Emphasizes the necessity of segregation for biomedical waste (distinguishing hazardous vs non-hazardous fractions) but does not enumerate five categories.

Indicates sector-specific segregation requirements exist; a student could look for sector-specific lists in the Rules to see if any prescribe five categories, but absence here weakens the five-category claim.

Specifically states the Rules are applicable beyond municipal areas and lists many other categories (urban agglomerations, census towns, notified industrial townships, railway areas, airports, defence establishments, SEZs, Central/State organisations, pilgrim/religious/historical places).

A student could compare this listed scope with the claim that the Rules apply 'only' to notified urban local bodies to see the claim is likely too narrow and then check the official Rules text for the full applicability clause.

Labels the snippet as 'Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016', indicating contextual material about the Rules (waste statistics) and signaling that the book treats the Rules as a distinct regulatory instrument with scope worth noting.

Use this as a prompt to consult the Rules' scope/definitions section to verify which entities are covered beyond municipal bodies.

Provides a clear list of types of urban local bodies (municipal corporation, municipality, notified area committee, town area committee, cantonment board, township, port trust, special purpose agency), clarifying what 'urban local bodies' can mean legally/administratively.

A student could map the book's enumerated ULB types against the Rules' listed covered entities to see whether the Rules' scope aligns with or exceeds the ULB categories.

Explains what a 'notified area committee' is (established by government notification for fast-developing or otherwise important towns), clarifying the meaning of 'notified' in urban governance.

Use this to interpret the phrase 'notified towns' in the statement — check whether the Rules' applicability language distinguishes between notified committees/towns and other categories like census towns or special areas.

Discusses urban waste disposal and differences in collection in metropolitan versus other cities/towns, implying regulatory attention may extend beyond formally notified municipal bodies to address broader urban waste problems.

Combine this practical problem context with the Rules' stated scope to argue why the Rules might deliberately cover areas beyond just notified ULBs; then verify against the Rules text.

States that the Rules extend beyond municipal areas and that local authorities are responsible for development of infrastructure including transportation to 'appropriate sites for processing and disposal'.

A student could check whether 'appropriate sites' is defined in the Rules by comparing this phrase with known site-selection criteria (distance from settlements, geology, floodplains) using a local map to see if the Rules mandate such specifics.

Gives concrete implementation timeframes requiring cities to 'commission the processing and disposal facility' within set periods, implying the Rules compel establishment of facilities but not necessarily how sites are chosen.

One could infer the Rules set obligations and then look for accompanying clauses or guidelines (using the Rules text) specifying technical/site criteria to meet these timelines; absence would suggest no elaborate criteria.

Lists salient features of the Rules such as expanded ambit and streamlined forms and procedures, indicating procedural detail in the Rules but not explicitly listing site-selection criteria in this snippet.

A student can treat this as evidence that the Rules contain procedural specifics and therefore search within the Rules for whether site-identification is covered with similar procedural detail.

Recommends guidelines prohibiting indiscriminate disposal and calls for preventive/management steps and advance planning, suggesting an emphasis on planned, regulated disposal rather than ad hoc dumping.

Combine this policy emphasis with basic planning knowledge (e.g., need for site criteria to prevent indiscriminate disposal) to hypothesize that the Rules may include or be expected to be accompanied by site-selection guidance, then verify in the Rules text.

Describes environmental harm from lack of proper management and 'indiscriminate solid waste dumping', implying a regulatory need for defined disposal sites and possibly criteria to prevent such dumping.

A student could use this as motivation to look for explicit site-selection criteria in the Rules (e.g., to prevent dumping in sensitive regions) and, using maps of sensitive areas, test whether the Rules' language (if present) aligns with such protections.

Specifies mandatory source segregation and prohibits throwing/burying/ burning solid waste outside one's premises, and requires payment to local waste collector.

A student could combine this with the fact that collection services are organized by local authorities (district/municipal) to ask whether the rules implicitly assume local handover rather than cross‑district transport.

States every waste generator shall deposit C&D waste at a collection centre or hand it over to authorised processing facilities.

One could check whether 'authorised processing facilities' are licensed by local (district/municipal) authorities, implying restrictions on transporting waste to facilities located in other districts.

Gives location‑based obligations (e.g., industrial units within 1 km of an RDF plant must use RDF), showing the rules include spatial/locational conditions.

Using this pattern, a student might infer the rules recognise facility location and could therefore contain provisions about where waste must be processed or handed over (potentially limiting inter‑district movement).

Recommends guidelines prohibiting indiscriminate disposal and stresses management at point of origin.

From the emphasis on point‑of‑origin management, one could question whether the Rules favour local processing/collection and therefore might discourage or regulate moving waste across districts.

Discusses national-level plastic waste management challenges and the need to improve systems, implying regulatory detail on management chains and processing.

A student could look for whether the Rules' system design for plastic waste includes territorial constraints on transport to manage collection and processing efficiencies across districts.