International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences ISSN 0973-6077 Volume 12, Number 11 (2017), pp. 1969-1991 © Research India Publications http://www.ripublication.com

Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites – A Case Study on The Ghazipur Landfill Site, Delhi (India)

Puneet Babbar1, Swatantra Verma2, Gauhar Mehmood3 1, 3 Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India. 2 Environment Lab, Ghazipur Waste to Energy Facility, East Delhi, India.

Abstract The presence of dumping grounds in highly urbanized environment directly results into health hazards for the people residing in the surrounding areas. In the past years, these open dumps have become a threat to the local hydrogeology. Groundwater contamination is one of the major problems associated with these open dumps. The Ghazipur landfill site is also a non- sanitary dumpsite site located in the eastern part of Delhi, India. The site is surrounded by densely populated residences and some of Delhi’s largest commercial raw food supply chains for dairy & poultry products, fish & meat supplies, fruit & vegetable items, etc. It is a matter of fact from various studies that penetration of the leachate in to the sub-soil strata at Ghazipur is taking place for a considerable time period. At the same time, the lack of infrastructure for basic facilities like drinking water has increased the dependency of the nearby inhabitants on the ground water leading to a high health risk. Considering the fact of a high yield potential of the area and dependency of a large number of inhabitants on groundwater resources, there is a need to map the leachate contamination by carrying out hydrogeological investigations coupled with chemical analysis to identify the locations and suitable depths for tapping the safe groundwater supplies. However, in a broad manner, the present site cannot be considered suitable for dumping of solid waste. Keywords: Ground Water Pollution, Municipal Solid Waste Management, Leachate, Dumpsites, Well Logging, Geo-Physical Resistivity, Correlation Analysis 1970 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

1. INTRODUCTION Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), in India, is disposed of in low-lying areas resulting in Open Dumps (hypothetically called as Landfill sites) without taking any precautions or operational controls. This unscientific disposal of municipal waste causes an adverse impact on all components of the environment and human health (Rathi, 2006; Sharholy et al., 2005; Ray et al., 200 5; Jha et al., 2003; Kansal, 2002; Kansal et al., 1998; Singh and Singh, 1998; Gupta et al., 1998). Especially, contamination of the groundwater resources from these open dumps is a critical study area for the researchers and scientists across the globe. The waste placed in landfills or open dumps gradually release its initial interstitial water and some of its decomposition by-products percolates into ground water moving through the waste deposits. Such liquid containing innumerable organic and inorganic compounds is called ‘leachate’. Leachate is generated through the moisture content of biodegradable fraction of MSW and contain a number of toxic chemical compounds which can directly penetrate the underground strata in absence of any lining and effect the ground water quality. The impact of landfill leachate on the surface and groundwater has given rise to a number of studies in recent years (Saarela, 2003; Abu-Rukah and Kofahi, 2001; Looser et al., 1999; Christensen et al., 1998; De Rosa et al., 1996; Flyhammar, 1995). In the present study, effect of leachate percolation on the ground water from a non- sanitary landfill site of Ghazipur has been studied. The dumpsite is surrounded by densely populated surroundings in a radius of merely 1 km and holds a very close proximity from various commercial food-chain markets like poultry, fish, dairy farms, etc. The water facilities in the area is partially available by municipal agencies and as a result nearby inhabitants are largely depends upon ground water to supplement daily water requirement. This makes the basis of the present study, where efforts have been made: (i) to know the extent of contamination by carrying out chemical analysis of the ground water samples; and (ii) to locate/demarcate the contaminated and uncontaminated strata by carrying out hydrogeological explorations in the study area. Concentration of various critical parameters such as TDS, TH, TA, Nitrates, Ammonia, Chlorides, Iron, etc. found to be high in the surrounding areas, which clearly determines that the leachate has significantly affected the ground water quality. The results are also supported by the depth-concentration analysis curves. However, aerial depth demarcation and movement of pollutant plume is highly unpredictable and just cannot be completely deciphered based on the hydro-geochemical studies, rather it will give an broad indication at macro level for adopting preventive and control measures.

Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1971

1.1 Study Area The location map of the study area is shown in Fig 1 below:

Figure 1: Image showing the location of study area in Delhi Region Zonal Map

The Ghazipur Landfill site was started in 1984 and falls under the Shahadra block. It is located near National Highway 24, adjacent to the Ghazipur crossing, in the East Delhi. The Landfill receives on an average of 2200-2500 MT of waste from the total 64 wards under two zones, North Shahdara Zone and the South Shahdara Zone of East Delhi area. It spreads over an area of approximately 29.62 hectares and receives on an average of 2200 MT of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) daily. The height of the waste dump has reached to a level of 40 m with the accumulation of approximately 5 million cubic meter of waste volume, which consists of a significant fraction of biodegradable components with high moisture content (EDMC, Report 2008). According to a research study conducted by IIT Delhi, average annual leachate percolation from the base of Ghazipur landfill site has been estimated as 24.36 million litres, using a Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance model (HELP). In the peak rainy season (month of July), generation of surface run-off even reaches to a level of 1.39 million litres per day. The underground strata around the study area consists of alluvial formation and the basement or hard rock occurs at greater depth around 100 m below ground level (bgl). Another study on the assessment of groundwater potential reveals moderately high concentrations of Cl¯, NO3¯, SO42¯, NH4+, Phenol, Fe, Zn and COD in groundwater, likely indicate that groundwater quality is being significantly affected by leachate percolation (Suman Mor, Khaiwal Ravindra, R. P. Dahiya and A. Chandra, 2006) The area around Landfill site is underlain by fine to medium sand mixed with coarse hard kankar up to a depth of 50-60 m bgl. Sediments below this depth are predominantly clayey in nature. At place, lenses of minor clayey silt horizons are also 1972 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

present within the sand horizon (JNU, Report 2006). As per the CGWB data, the entire catchment area around the dumpsite has very high ground water potential. Recent data, shown in table 1.1 below, with respect to stage of ground water development also indicates a high amount of with drawl against the recharge in the Ghazipur catchment (CGWB, Report 2005).

Table-1.1: Ground Water Levels in entire Ghazipur Area for 2012-13 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2012 14.21 - - - 15.74 - - 16.38 - - 16.89 -

2013 17.02 - - - 17.66 - - 17.78 - - 17.81 -

Source: Central Ground Water Board, 2005

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS 2.1 Geo-Physical Resistivity Logging of a Test Borehole The aquifers can serve as the storage units for the leachate contaminated water. At the same time, if they are confined or even deep unconfined aquifers with a clayey strata/layer on the top, there are the possibilities that the leachate would not have been reached the strata. To study this aspect, geophysical logging activities were carried out in an exploratory well adjacent to the landfill. The geophysical investigations gives an idea about the condition of the soil strata and possibly productive horizons. It also suggests the proper depth of ground water with drawl. Essentially, it is the recording, in uncased (or, recently, even cased) sections of a borehole, of the resistivities (or their reciprocals, the conductivities) of the subsurface formations, generally along with the spontaneous potentials (SPs) generated in the borehole.

Figure 2: Photographs of the logging instrument and wired probe Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1973

2.2 Sampling Locations Ground Water sampling locations are shown in the Fig.3 below on a digitized map of the Ghazipur landfill catchment area. The digitization of the study area was done using the Auto-Cad software. The topographical map from the Survey of India (No. H43 – X/6) was used as the raw imagery. In support of the exact demarcations, a few high resolution google satellite imagery were also used. The circular marked ( ) locations shows the sampling points where the physical sampling were carried out to ascertain the ground water quality with respect to possible contamination.

Uttar Pradesh

Fruit &Veg. Market Slaughter House Fish Mkt Poultry Mkt. Khora Dairy Farms Landfill DDA Flats WtE Site Khichri Dairy Pur Farms

Kalyanpuri Gharoli

Kondli Extn.

Kondli

Figure 3: Ground water sampling locations marked on a digitized map

Table 1.2 below shows the hydrogeological details of the ground water sampling structures around the Ghazipur landfill site.

1974 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

Table 1.2: Hydrogeological details of sampling structures and geographical location S. Locations Source Type No. of Geo-coordinates Distance Depth of No of Sample from structure Sample Site (mtrs) Latitude Longitude (km) (N) (E) 1 WtE Borewell GW 1 28O37’20.4’’ 77O19’24.5’’ 0.20 36 Project Site 2 DDA Flats Borewell GW 1 28O37’23.5’’ 77O19’14.1’’ 1 40 3 Dairy Borewell GW 1 28O37’17.1’’ 77O19’22.1’’ 0.30 37 Farms Block-B 4 Dairy Handpump GW 1 28O37’30.6’’ 77O19’30.4’’ 0.20 9 Farms Block-D 5 Khichripur Borewell GW 1 28O37’08.9’’ 77O19’07.0’’ 2.20 46 Block-5 6 Ghazipur Borewell GW 1 28O37’50.7’’ 77O19’11.1’’ 2 36 Village 7 Poultry Borewell GW 1 28O37’39.5’’ 77O19’47.8’’ 0.8 37 Market 8 Gharoli Handpump GW 1 28O37’20.2’’ 77O19’48.2’’ 0.7 9 Village,

2.3 Analytical Methods After decided sampling location the sample were collected immediately from the sites and stored in a freezer at 4oC for analysis. The analysis was also started immediately at once according to method describe in APHA 22nd edition 2012, because some parameter characteristic would have been changed after 12 hours, like example pH. All collected samples were analyzed for selected parameters based on selected method as given in Table 1.3 below. Various physio-chemical and bacteriological parameters like pH, Total Dissolved Solid (TDS), Total Hardness (TH), Chloride (Cl-), - 2+ 2+ 2- - Fluoride (F ), Calcium (Ca ), Magnesium (Mg ), Sulphate (SO4 ), Nitrate(NO3 ), Total Ammonia as N, Total Iron, Phenolic compound, Total Alkalinity, MPN and Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1975

E.Coli were tested. The pH was determined through pH Meter (Digital pH Meter Type: MK-VI). TDS was estimated by Gravimetric method (Oven-drying Method) with the help of APHA 2540-C method. TH, Calcium, magnesium and Chloride were estimated by titrimetric method. Fluoride by SPADNS method, Nitrate by APHA 4500-B ultraviolet Spectrophotometric screening method, Sulphate by Turbidimetric method and Ammonia were estimated by Phenete method. Phenol were also determine by direct photometric method. All spectrophotometric parameters were analyzed by Perkin-Elmer UV/VIS Lambda 2 Spectrophotometer. MPN and E.Coli were estimated by membrane filtration technique. All the analysis were carried out in triplicate and the result were found reproducible within 5% error. Table 1.3: Testing parameters and standard methods for analysis S.No Parameters Methods Protocol IS: Limits

A) Physical Parameters

1 pH pH Meter IS:3025 Pt. 11 6.5-8.5 2 Total Dissolved Solid Gravimetric IS:3025 Pt. 16 500, Max(2000) B) General Parameters

3 Total hardness (as CaCo3) By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 21 200, Max(600) 4 Chloride By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 32 250, Max(1000) 5 Fluoride Colorimetric APHA 4500 F - D 1 Max 6 Calcium By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 40 75, Max(200) 7 Magnesium By Calculation IS:3025 Pt. 46 30, Max(100) 8 Sulphate Turbidimetric IS:3025 Pt. 24 200 Max 9 Nitrate Colorimetric IS:3025 Pt. 34 45 Max 10 Total Ammonia (as N) By Distillation IS:3025 Pt. 34 0.5 Max 11 Iron Colorimetric APHA 3500 B 0.3 Max 12 Phenolic Compound By Calculation IS:3025 Pt. 43 0.001 Max

13 Total Alkalinity(as CaCo3) By Titration IS:3025 Pt. 23 200, Max (600) C) Bacteriological Parameters

14 MPN Coliform / 100 ml Most Probable IS 1622 10 C/100 ml No. 15 E.Coli Enrichment & IS 1622 Absent biochemical test 1976 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

3.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1 Logging Results Based on the interpretation of the Logging, the following litho logy, shown in Table- 1.4, was inferred, which allies fairly well with the well-site litho-log based on mud- wash samples. The litholog inferred also broadly tallies with that of the well-site litho- log.

Table 1.4: Results of the Lithology carried out near the landfill Site

Depth (in metres) Litholog Quality

0 – 4 Surface soil

4 – 7 Sandy clay

7 – 20 Fine sand

20 – 23 Clay

23 – 29 Fine sand

29 – 32 Clay

32 – 46* Fine sand Good

46 – 49 Clay

49 – 58* Fine sand Good

58 – 63 Fine sand Saline

63 – 70 Clay

70 – 76 Fine sand Saline

Fig. 4 below shows the logging curve made on the basis of resistivity and spontaneous potential (SP) readings. Resistivity values are lower, where there is the availability of fresh water aquifer. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1977

Figure 4: SP and resistivity (N-16) Curves for the Logging carried out at the Ghazipur Site

1978 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

3.2 Groundwater Chemistry The ground water of the study area is being used for drinking, domestic and other purposes. Table 1.5 shows the analyzed values at different sampling locations, viz-a- viz maximum permissible limit recommended by IS: 10500 of BIS (2012). The pH range measured between 7.0 to 7.5. TDS indicate the general nature of water quality. The range of TDS at all sites fall in between 510 to 3205 mg/L. Maximum TDS was found at the site Dairy form Block-D and minimum TDS was found at Khichripur Colony. The concentration of Total Hardness in ground water ranges from 112 to 1550 mg/l. Total Hardness is normally expressed as the total concentration of Calcium and Magnesium in mg/l equivalent CaCO3. The total alkalinity was found to be in the range of 120 to 590 mg/l in ground water samples, which are caused mainly - - - due to OH , CO3 , HCO3 ions. The value of chloride obtained 90 to 1364 mg/l against the standard values 250 mg/l. Department of National Health and Welfare, Canada reported that chloride in ground water may result from both natural and anthropogenic sources such as run-off containing salts, the use of inorganic fertilizers, landfill leachates, septic tank effluents, animal feeds, industrial effluents, irrigation drainage and seawater intrusion in coastal areas. Chloride is not harmful to human at low concentration but could alter the taste of water. The concentration of nitrate was found in water sample up to 57 mg/l. Although only one sample no. 8 exceeds the permissible limit but it shows a moderately high concentration. Jawad et al, 1998 have also reported increase in nitrate concentration in ground water due to waste water dumped at the disposal site and likely indicate the impact of leachate. The concentration of fluoride in the studied water samples ranged from 0.03 to 1.2 mg/l. The concentration of fluoride at low concentration in ground water has been considered beneficial but high concentration may causes dental fluorosis (tooth mottling) and more seriously skeletal fluorosis. Only one sample no. 8 exceeds the permissible limit but it shows a moderately high concentration. Concentration of + sulfate in water sample ranged from 70 mg/l to 575 mg/l. The ammonia (NH4 ) concentration in the samples varies from not detectable range to 0.67 mg/l and likely indicates its origin from leachate of MSW. The quality of ground water pollution can also be indicated by microbial contamination. In the present analyses, it is found that sample no. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were contaminated by microbes, which is very dangerous for human health.

Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1979

Table 1.5: Ground water analysis results for various sampling locations

3.3 Graphical Analysis of the Results

1980 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1981

1982 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1983

1984 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

3.4 Effect of Depth and Distance It was aimed to form depth – concentration curves for some critical types of pollution indicators (TDS, TH and TA) based on the “Correlation Analysis”. The Correlation Analysis is a preliminary descriptive technique to estimate the degree of association among the variables involved. The purpose of the correlation analysis is to measure the intensity of association observed between two variables. Such association is likely to lead to reasoning about causal relationship between the variables. The correlation matrix between various parameters is shown in Table - 1.6 below. Table 1.6: Correlation matrix for different water quality parameters

Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1985

Most of the parameters were found to bear statistically significant correlation with each other indicating close association of these parameter with each other. For example, TDS had a strong correlation with a number of parameters like TH, 2+ - 2- + + Mg , Cl , SO4 , Na , and K indicates the high mobility of these ions. Thus the single parameter of TDS can give a reasonable good indication of a number of parameters (Ravindra et al., 2003). Total hardness was found to be positively 2+ 2+ - + + 2+ correlated with Ca , Mg , Cl , SO4, Na and K . Mg found to be negatively 2- + + correlated with B, but positively correlated with SO4 , Na and K . An excellent + - 2- correlation value of Na with Cl and SO4 indicate that the main water type in the sample is Na-Cl and Na-SO4. With the help of data generated from ground water chemistry results and the geo- physical investigations, concentration of critical indicators were analyzed in Fig. 5 below for varying depth and distance from the landfill site. The extent of contamination of groundwater quality due to leachate percolation depends upon a number of factors like leachate composition, rainfall, depth and distance of the well from the pollution source (landfill site in the present case). Interestingly in present case, the water contamination drops fast with above 40 m and further percolation of leachate becomes gentler. Similarly when the water quality of the wells situated at different distances from the landfill site but having the same depth was compared, water sample from the well situated close to the landfill site was found to be more contaminated than that of the well situated farther away. It obviously follows from the fact that the gravitational movement of the viscous fluid, leachate, is hindered due to the mass of the solid soil matter. With time the viscous fluid will penetrate deeper and spread all over a longer distance.

Figure 5: Depth and concentration analysis curves for critical GW quality indicators 1986 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

Strictly speaking one should avoid using groundwater drawn from the wells located in proximity of the waste dumping sites. If this is unavoidable, deeper drilling (below 40 m) and frequent analysis of water samples are desirable. Efforts should be made to supply clean water through pipelines from distant sources. Further investigations by drilling more wells of varying depths is also necessary for having a proper correlation between time and percolation depth.

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The characteristics of the ground water samples collected around the Ghazipur landfill site has clearly shown an indication of the contamination. Moderately high - 2+ - + concentration of TDS, Cl , SO , NO3 , NH4 , TH, TA and Fe etc. were observed in groundwater s a m p l e s , which deteriorates its quality for drinking and other - - + domestic purposes. Especially, presence of Cl , NO3 , NH4 and Fe may be referred as a tracer of contamination in the ground water. The pH value of the collected sample was found to be in the range of 7.5 -8.5. The relatively high values TDS indicates the presence of inorganic material in the samples. Among the nitrogenous compound, ammonia nitrogen was present in high concentration, this is probably due to the deamination of amino acids during the decomposition of organic compounds (Crawford and Smith, 1985; Tatsi and Zouboulis, 2002). High concentrations of - NO3 were also observed in some samples. The high level of Fe in the ground water sample indicates that iron and steel scrap are also dumped in the landfill. The dark brown color of the leachate is mainly attributed to the oxidation of ferrous to ferric form and the formation of ferric hydroxide colloids and complexes with fulvic/ humic substance (Chu, et. al., 1994). The samples were also found to be bacteriologically unsafe. Further, as per the logging results, fresh water aquifer is available within the range of 32 – 58 meters. The groundwater quality improves with the increase in depth and distance of the well from the pollution source. At greater depths (more than 40 m), it was found that leachate percolation becomes gentler and this further improves with the varying distance. This shows the strata b/w 40-60 m is presently safe for ground water withdrawal. It was also observed that leachate percolation usually concentrates in West and North-western sides along with a high concentration of a few parameters on eastern side. From the above deliberations, it is clearly evident that the leachate generated from the landfill site is affecting the groundwater quality in the adjacent areas through percolation in the subsoil. Although, the concentrations of a few contaminants were not found to exceed the limits, even then the ground water quality represent a significant threat to public health. Therefore, some remedial measures are required to prevent further contamination. This can be achieved by the management of the Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1987 leachate generated within the landfill. Leachate management can be achieved through effective control of leachate generation, its treatment and subsequent recycling throughout the waste. Landfill should also be provided with proper lining and collection system for the leachate. The MSW amount is expected to increase significantly in the near future as the country strives to attain an industrialized nation status in the coming years (Sharma and Shah, 2005; CPCB, 2004; Shekdar et al., 1992). Therefore, establishing proper MSW management systems is very critical at all levels of control. The presence of residential establishments and commercial markets around the landfill area also shows an incompatible land use planning and govt. should take the steps for the relocation of these market places and provide piped supply in the residential areas. Till then the ground water should be used for potable purposes only after appropriate treatment.

5. REFERENCES [1] Abu- Rukah, Y. and O. Al- Kofahi, 2001. The assessment of the effect of landfill leachate on ground-water quality—a case study. El-Akader landfill site—north Jordan, Arid Environ. 49, 615-630. [2] Ahsan, N., 1999. Solid waste management plan for Indian megacities. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection 19 (2), 90–95. [3] AIT/UNEP Regional Resource Center for Asia and the Pacific (RRC.AP), 2010. MSW management report: “Status-quo and Issues in Southeast and East Asian Countries. [4] Anupam Khajuria, Yugo Yamamoto and Tohru Morioka. Estimation of municipal solid waste generation and landfill area in Asian developing countries, Journal of Environmental Biology. September 2010, 31(5) 649-654 (2010) [5] Application of Isotopic Techniques in Groundwater Contamination Studies in selected Landfill sites in Delhi, 2005. Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), New Delhi. [6] Bhatnagar, N.C. & Gupta, Sushil, 1989: Hydrogeological conditions and ground water development potential of Union Territory of Delhi. Central Ground Water Board [7] Bhatnagar, N.C. & Firozuddin T.G. 1979: Hydrogeological conditions and Possibilities of further ground water development in the Union Territory of Delhi. Central Ground Water Board [8] Bharat Jhamnani and SK Singh (2009), Groundwater Contamination due to Bhalaswa Landfill Site in New Delhi in International Journal of Civil and 1988 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

Environmental Engineering 1:3 2009 [9] Bhide, A.D., Shekdar, A.V., 1998. Solid waste management in Indian urban centers. International Solid Waste Association Times (ISWA) (1), 26–28. [10] Butow, E., Holzbecher, E. and E. Kob, 1989. Approach to Model the Transport of Leachates from aLandfill Site including Geochemical Processes, Contaminant Transport in Groundwater. Kobus and Kinzelbach, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 183–190. [11] Carpenter, P. J., Ding, A. & Cheng, L. (2012) Identifying Groundwater Contamination Using Resistivity Surveys at a Landfill near Maoming, China. Nature ,Education Knowledge 3(7):20. [12] Central Ground Water Board, New Delhi, 2003: Ground Water in Delhi- Improving the Sustainability through Rain Water Harvesting [13] Central Ground Water Board, New Delhi & Central Pollution Control Board- Status of Ground Water quality and Pollution Aspects in NCT-Delhi, 2000 [14] CPCB, 2000, Status of Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Treatment and Disposal in Metrocities, Series: CUPS/46/1999–2000. [15] CPCB, 2000. Status of Municipal Solid waste Generation, Collection, Treatment and Disposal in Class I Cities, Series: ADSORBS/31/1999– 2000. [16] Central pollution Control Board, Status of Solid Waste Generation, Collection, Treatment and Disposal in Class –II Towns, Control of Urban Pollution Series: CUPS/50/1999-2000. [17] Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2004. Management of Municipal Solid Waste. Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, India. [18] Central Pollution Control Board, Assessment of Status of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Metro Cities and State Capitals, Control of Urban Pollution Series: CUPS/65/2006-07. [19] Central Pollution Control Board. Status report on the Municipal Solid Waste Management- Compliance report by SPCBs, 2012. [20] CPHEEO, Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Management-2000’, Published by Central Public Health & Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO), Government of India. [21] CPHEEO, Ministry of Urban Development, GoI,Report of the Technology Advisory Group on Solid Waste Management, May 2005. [22] Chakrabarty, P., Srivastava, V.K., Chakrabarti, S.N., 1995. Solid waste disposal and the environment – a review. Indian Journal Of Environmental Protection 15 (1), 39–43. Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1989

[23] Christensen, J. B., D. L. Jensen, C. Gron, Z. Filip and T. H. Christensen, 1998. Characterization of the dissolved organic carbon in landfill leachate-polluted groundwater, Water Res., 32, 125-135. [24] Datta, M., 1997. Waste Disposal in Engineered Landfills. Narosa publishing house, New Delhi, India. [25] Dayal, G., 1994. Solid wastes: sources, implications and management. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection 14 (9), 669–677. [26] Deize Dias Lopes , Sandra M.C.P. Silva , Fernandes Fernandes , Raquel S. Teixeira , André Celligoi , Luiz Henrique Dall’Antônia (2012) Geophysical technique and groundwater monitoring to detect leachate contamination in the surrounding area of a landfill e Londrina (PR e Brazil) in Journal of Environmental Management 113 (2012) 481-487. [27] DeRosa, E., Rubel, D., Tudino, M., Viale, A., and R.J. Lombardo, 1996. The leachate composition of an old waste dump connected to groundwater: Influence of the reclamation works. Environ. Monit. Assess. 40 (3): 239-252. [28] Edmunds, W.M., Cook, J.M., Kinniburgh, D.J., Miles D.L., and Trafford, J.M. (1989). Trace elements occurrence in British groundwaters, Research Report No. SD/89/03. British Geological Survey, Keyworth. [29] Fatta D., A Papadopoulos and M., Loizidou, 1999. A study on the landfill leachate and its impact on the groundwater quality of the greater area. Environ. Geochem. Health 21 (2): 175-190. [30] Flyhammar, P.: 1995, Leachate quality and environmental effects at active Swedish municipal landfill, in: R. Cossu, H. T. Christensen and R. Stegmann (eds) Regulations, EnvironmentalImpact and Aftercare. Proceedings Sardinia ’95, Fifth International Landfill Symposium. Vol. III, Sardinia, Italy, pp. 549– 557. [31] Gas Recovery and Reuse from closure of three Delhi Landfills - Feasibility of Closure Design Options, 2008. East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC), New Delhi. [32] Harris, R. C. and Parry, E.L. (1982), Investigations into domestic refuse leachate attenuation in the unsaturated zone of Triassic sandstones, In effects of waste disposal on groundwater and surface water, pp 147-55, Pub N0 139, Int. Assoc. Hydrol. Sci. [33] Harris, R. C. and Lowe, D. R. (1984), Changes in the organic fraction of leachate from two domestic refuse sites on the Sherwood Sandstone, Nottinghamshire, Q. J. Eng. Geol., 117, 57-69 [34] Hudak, P.F., 1998. Groundwater monitoring strategies for variable versus 1990 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood

constant contaminant loading functions. Environ. Monit. Assess. 50, 271-288 [35] Jaime A. Reyes-López , Jorge Ramírez-Hernández, Octavio Lázaro-Mancilla, Concepción Carreón-Diazconti, Miguel Martín-Loeches Garrido (2008) Assessment of Groundwater contamination by landfill leachate: A case in México [36] John Lyngkilde, (1992) Redox zones of a landfill leachate pollution plume (Vejen, Denmark) [37] Kansal, A., 2002. Solid waste management strategies for India. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection 22 (4), 444–448 [38] Kansal, A., Prasad, R.K., Gupta, S., 1998. Delhi municipal solid waste and environment – an appraisal. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection 18 (2), 123–128 [39] Khan, R.R., 1994. Environmental management of municipal solid wastes. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection 14 (1), 26–30 [40] Lal, A.K., 1996. Environmental status of Delhi. Indian Journal of Environmental Protection 16 (1), 1–11 [41] Looser, M.O., A. Parriaux, and M. Bensimon, 1999. Landfill underground pollution detection and characterization using inorganic traces. Water Res. 33, 3609-3616. [42] Mor, S., Ravindra, K., Vischher, A. R. P. Dahiya and A. Chandra, 2005. Municipal Solid Waste Characterisation and its assessment for potential methane generation at Ghazipur Landfill Site, Delhi: A case study. Bioresource Technology, Communicated. [43] Moo-Young, H., Johnson, B., Johnson. A., Carson, D., Lew, C., Liu, S, and K. Hancock, 2004. Characterization of infiltration rates from landfills: Supporting groundwater modeling efforts. Environ. Monit. Assess. 96, 283-311. [44] Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), 2000. The Gazette of India. Municipal Solid Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, New Delhi, India. [45] Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD), GOI. Guidance note on the Municipal Solid Waste Management on a Regional Basis. [46] NCR Planning Board, 2002: Draft report of Master Plan of NCR, 2021 [47] Olaniya, M. S. and K. L. Saxena, 1977. Ground water pollution by open refuse dumps at Jaipur. Ind J. Environ. Health 19, 176-188. [48] Peter Kjeldsen , Morton A. Barlaz , Alix P. Rooker , Anders Baun , Anna Ledin & Thomas H. Christensen (2002). Present and Long-Term Composition of MSW Landfill Leachate: A Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites 1991

and Technology, 32:4, 297-336, DOI: 10.1080/10643380290813462. [49] Rathi, S., 2006. Alternative approaches for better municipal solid waste management in Mumbai, India. Journal of Waste Management 26 (10), 1192– 1200. [50] R.V. Nicholson, J.A. Cherry, E.J. Reardon (1983) Migration of contaminants in groundwater at a landfill: A case study 6. Hydrogeochemistry. [51] Saarela, J., 2003. Pilot investigations of surface parts of three closed landfills and factors affecting them Environ. Monit. Assess. 84,183-192 [52] Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2005. Analysis of municipal solid waste management systems in Delhi – a review. In: Book of Proceedings for the second International Congress of Chemistry and Environment, Indore, India, pp. 773–777 [53] Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2006. Development of prediction models for municipal solid waste generation for Delhi city. In: Proceedings of National Conference of Advanced in Mechanical Engineering (AIME-2006), Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India, pp. 1176–1186 [54] Sharholy, M., Ahmad, K., Mahmood, G., Trivedi, R.C., 2008. Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities – A review: Journal of Science Direct: Waste Management 28 (2008) 459–467 [55] Siddiqui, T.Z., Siddiqui, F.Z., Khan, E., 2006. Sustainable development through integrated municipal solid waste management (MSWM) approach – a case study of . In: Proceedings of National Conference of Advanced in Mechanical Engineering (AIME-2006), Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India, pp. 1168–1175 [56] Stoline, M. R., Passerp, R. N., and M. J. Barcelona, 1993. Statistical trends in groundwater monitoring data at a landfill site – A case study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 27 (3): 201-219 [57] Study of Groundwater Contamination through Landfill Site, NCT Delhi, 2006. School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi [58] Yanful, E. K., Quigley, R. M. and Nesbitt, H. W.: 1988, ‘Heavy metal migration at a landfill site, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada – 2: Metal Partitioning and Geotechnical Implications’, Appl. Geochem.3, 623–629

1992 Puneet Babbar, Swatantra Verma, Gauhar Mehmood