Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites ... · development also indicates a high amount of with drawl against the recharge in the Ghazipur catchment (CGWB, Report

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

mailto:[email protected]

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


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 -

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

Source: Central Ground Water Board, 2005


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.

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.

Fruit &Veg. Market

Poultry Mkt.

Fish Mkt

WtE Site

Dairy Farms

DDA Flats

Khichri Pur

Kalyanpuri

Kondli

Kondli Extn.

Gharoli

Khora

Slaughter House

Uttar Pradesh

Landfill

Dairy Farms


Table 1.2: Hydrogeological details of sampling structures and geographical location

S.

No

Locations Source Type

of

Sample

No. of

Sample

Geo-coordinates Distance

from

Site

(km)

Depth of

structure

(mtrs)

Latitude

(N)

Longitude

(E)

1 WtE

Project

Site

Borewell GW 1 28O37’20.4’’ 77O19’24.5’’ 0.20 36

2 DDA Flats Borewell GW 1 28O37’23.5’’ 77O19’14.1’’ 1 40

3 Dairy

Farms

Block-B

Borewell GW 1 28O37’17.1’’ 77O19’22.1’’ 0.30 37

4 Dairy

Farms

Block-D

Handpump GW 1 28O37’30.6’’ 77O19’30.4’’ 0.20 9

5 Khichripur

Block-5

Borewell GW 1 28O37’08.9’’ 77O19’07.0’’ 2.20 46

6 Ghazipur

Village

Borewell GW 1 28O37’50.7’’ 77O19’11.1’’ 2 36

7 Poultry

Market

Borewell GW 1 28O37’39.5’’ 77O19’47.8’’ 0.8 37

8 Gharoli

Village,

Handpump GW 1 28O37’20.2’’ 77O19’48.2’’ 0.7 9

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-),

Fluoride (F-), Calcium (Ca2+), Magnesium (Mg2+), Sulphate (SO42-), Nitrate(NO3

-),

Total Ammonia as N, Total Iron, Phenolic compound, Total Alkalinity, MPN and


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

No.

IS 1622 10 C/100 ml

15 E.Coli Enrichment &

biochemical test

IS 1622 Absent


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.


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

Ghazipur Site


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.


Table 1.5: Ground water analysis results for various sampling locations

3.3 Graphical Analysis of the Results






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


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,

Mg2+

, Cl-, SO4

2-, 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

correlated with Ca2+

, Mg2+

, Cl-, SO4, Na

+ and K

+. Mg

2+ found to be negatively

correlated with B, but positively correlated with SO42-

, Na+

and K+

. An excellent

correlation value of Na+

with Cl-

and SO42-

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


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

concentration of TDS, Cl-, SO2+, 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


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


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.


[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


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

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X08001475





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169772292900113


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 Aligarh District. 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





Documents

Groundwater Contamination From Non-Sanitary Landfill Sites ... · development also indicates a high amount of with drawl against the recharge in the Ghazipur catchment (CGWB, Report