1. This review application has been filed by The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and State of Telangana for review of order dated 14.02.2020. The said order was passed in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Telangana accompanied by other senior officers and Chairman and Member Secretary of CPCB.
2. The grievance in the review application is primarily against the direction not to cap the legacy waste and instead to undertake biomining for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. According to the review applicants, capping work of Jawahar Nagar dump site had commenced prior to 2016 Rules when technology options of biomining were not in contemplation. Accordingly, at the said site in terms of Integrated Solid Waste Management Project a detailed DPR with Rs. 500 crores as project cost was submitted to the Government of India and after approval and sanction of 50% funds under the JNNURM, global tenders were called and contract was given to M/s. Ramky Enviro Engineers Ltd. (M/s. REEL) which included reclamation of dump sites of Jawaharnagar, Fathullaguda, Gandhamguda and Shamshiguda. Work commenced and part of the land has already been reclaimed. Scientific capping design was prepared by the international consultants and approved on 22.03.2018.
3. The issue has been duly considered in the order of this Tribunal dated 14.02.2020 as follows:
“32. We first consider the stand of the State for capping of the old dump site at Jawahar Nagar in Hyderabad. The stand is not legally and environmentally tenable. Capping will result in leachate remaining untreated affecting the ground water and gases in the dump site will remain unflared having potential for air pollution and hazardous for environment. Moreover, huge area of land which is scarce and valuable will be wasted. The cost involved will be far less than the value of the land and need for protection of environment. It is also wrong to say that bio-mining or bio-remediation can be only of small size dump sites and not big dump sites. The size of the dump site is said to be 339 acres and the garbage is said to be 1.2 crore tonnes. We considered this aspect in the order dated 17.07.2019 in O.A. No. 519/2019. Therein three dump sites of Delhi, including Ghazipur with 1.4 crore tonne of garbage were involved. This Tribunal rejected the plea of the Corporation that bioremediation of bio-mining were not possible and only option was capping. It was observed:
“8. In O.A. No. 386/2019, the grievance raised was that unscientific capping process of the Bhalswa legacy waste dumpsites was against the SWM Rules and not conducive to the environment. This Tribunal, vide order dated 04.04.2019, sought opinion from a Committee comprising CPCB and Dr. G.K. Pandey, former Expert Member of this Tribunal, who is known to have expertise in the subject. Report dated 31.05.2019 has been submitted by the said Committee after visit to the Bhalswa site, visit to Bawana Waste Processing Plant and meeting with the North Delhi MC officers. Presentation was made before the said Committee by concerned officers of the North MCD as well as experts hired by the said Corporation. Some of the observations of the said Committee are as follows:
“3.5 The Cost indicated in the DPR for bioremediation is Rs. 1178 Crores. However, as per CPCB Guidelines for Disposal of Legacy Waste, the cost of bioremediation and bio-mining of dumpsite is in the range of Rs. 400 - 700/Cum which works out in the range of Rs. 440 - 560 Crore. The actual cost shall be further reduced, if cost of land recovered by means of bio-mining/bioremediation is factored in. Hence the cost indicated by NDMC seems to be very much on the higher side.
Similarly, the other issues raised by NDMC need detailed assessment.
3.6 As per CPCB Guidelines, capping of dumpsites is not advisable as it would lead to generation of more leachates and methane/landfill gas generation which would further contaminate the already heavily contaminated Groundwater (Ground/surface water reports at Annexure VIII to X). Further as per CPCB Guidelines, gas extraction is very difficult and inefficient when attempts are made to insert suction pipes into dumped waste instead of before dumping begins. Poor success at Gorai capping led to the forced refund by Mumbai city of Rs. 15 crore advance carbon credits. Taking into consideration the present height (65m) of the landfill, extraction of leachate & gas will be even more difficult.
3.7 In addition, in the present tender documents, there is no provision for onsite treatment of leachates and utilization of gas generated as also decontamination of ground water/bio-remediation have not been envisaged in spite of the fact that ground and surface water are heavily polluted as reflected by analysis of ground water and surface water reports given in the DPR. The details of analysis reports are given below:
(a) Table-I (Annexure-VIII) pertains to ground water sampling report of hand pumps which has indicated that average levels of BOD (2.4 mg/1), COD (28.0 mg/1), TDS (2783 mg/1) are more than the prescribed acceptable limit of zero for BOD, zero for COD and 500 mg/1 for TDS. Besides, the average high level of Residual Free Chlorine of 208.7 mg/1 (limit 0.2mg/l), Chlorides 769.7 mg/1 (limit 250 mg/1), Sulphate 228.2 mg/1 (limit 200mg/l), Alkalinity 508.7 mg/1 (limit 200 mg/1), Lead 0.2 mg/1 (limit 0.01 mg/1) and Nickel 0.1 mg/1 (limit 0.02mg/l) indicates that drinking water from the hand pumps has been significantly polluted and is not drinkable.
(b) Table-2 (Annexure-IX) reflects ground water analysis report pertaining to 18 boreholes. The average levels of BOD (93.11 mg/1), COD (783.72 mg/1) and TDS (6841.83 mg/1) were found more as against the acceptable limit of zero for BOD, zero for COD and 500 mg/1 for TDS indicating that ground water has been significantly. contaminated due to percolation of leachates from the landfill.
(c) Table-3 (Annexure-X) pertains to analysis of surface water taken from Bhalsawa drain and Bhalsawa lake. The analysis report indicates that the average levels of BOD (68.40 mg/1), COD (547.51 mg/l) and TDS (4465.23 mg/l) were found higher as against the permissible limit for drinking water for BOD (0), COD (0) and TDS (500 mg/I) respectively indicating that surface water is significantly polluted due to discharge of untreated leachates. Besides, the average levels of residual free chlorine (179.60 mg/1, limit 0.2 mg/1), Iron (0.53 mg/1, limit 0.3), Chlorides (13119.04 mg/1, limit 250), Calcium (188.99 mg/1, limit 75), Alkalinity (1285.96 mg/1, limit 200), phenolic compound (0.07 mg/1, limit 0.001), Lead (0.15 mg/1, limit 0.01), Mercury (3.75 mg/1, limit 0.001) and Nickel (0.15 mg/1, limit 0.02) were found high indicating that surface water is very polluted and Bhalswa lake is not meeting the criteria for drinking water as toxic elements like phenolic compounds including heavy metals are present in the lake water. It is quite possible that the animals (buffalos, cows etc.) may be drinking lake water and as such the possibility of toxic chemicals and heavy metals entering the food chain cannot be over ruled. Therefore, lake water should not be used for drinking purposes by the human beings and the animals.
(d) Table-4 (Annexure-XI) leachate emanating from the BLF indicates that BOD (500 mg/1), COD (2279 mg/1) & TDS (19000 mg/1) levels are higher in comparison to leachate standards of BOD (30 mg/1), COD (250 mg/1) & TDS (2100 mg/1) as prescribed in SWM Rules, 2016.
3.8 There are various technologies available for treatment of MSW such as composting, bio-methanation, incineration coupled with power generation, gasification, pyrolysis, plasma arc gasification, molten salt oxidation (non-flame thermal process for destroying organic materials) etc.
4.0 Recommendations
i. NDMC should do a detailed assessment of the alternative technological options including Bio-mining/Bio-remediation for Bhalswa dumpsite.
ii. Niti Aayog has constituted a Committee to identify the technologies in Solid Waste Management for Cleaning up of Delhi (Annexure XII). NDMC may consider the outcome of this committee's report in assessing options for Remediation of Bhalswa dumpsite.
iii. In case, capping of Bhalswa Dumpsite (which is not advisable as per CPCB Guidelines as mentioned at point 3.6 above) is proposed as the only option due to time and space constraints as also technoeconomic reasons, the DPR should be revisited especially to look into the following conditions:
(a) Bio-mining should be undertaken to the maximum extent possible without having significant adverse environmental impacts on the adjoining population.
(b) Bio-remediation/decontamination of surface, ground water and soil should also be undertaken in the affected areas.
(c) No dumping of MSW/Garbage (about 2000 tons/day) shall be done at Bhalswa dumpsite and alternate arrangements for disposal of this waste to be made by NDMC on priority in accordance with S WM Rules, 2016.”
9. We may note that as per information furnished during the hearing, the extent of legacy waste and the land covered by the three dump sites are as follow:
i. East Delhi Ghazipur dumpsite - 1.4 crore metric tonne approx. on 70 acres of land
ii. North Delhi Bhalswa dumpsite - 80 lakh metric tonne approx. on 36 acres of land
iii. South Okhla dumpsite - 55-60 lakh metric Delhi tonne approx. on 46 acres of land
10. Information made available from Indore Municipal Corporation is as follows:
“For screening purposes, trommels of 30 MT per hour capacities, are available in the market on rental basis. Necessary vehicles and equipments (like escavators, back-hoe loaders, dumpers, vibratory screens for dust removals and bundling machines for Refused Derived Fuel) are required for bio-mining and bio-remediation purposes. Normally, 20 trommels along with necessary machines and tools can process 5000 MT of legacy waste on daily basis in two shifts operation. Recently, Indore has successfully completed bio-mining/bio-remediation of 15 lakh MT legacy waste in 1 year. Rent for trommels paid by Indore to various machine manufacturers were in tune of Rs. 7.25 Lakh per trommel per month and bio-mining/bio-remediation process was followed as mentioned in the latest guidelines issued by the CPCB. Normally, the per metric tonn cost of bio-remediation process of legacy waste will range between Rs. 300-450 depending upon area to area.
In legacy waste sites where local bodies have space constraints can initially start the bio-mining/bio-remediation options through mobile trommels.
Similarly, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has started the bio-mining/bio-remediation at Pirana dumping site and they are paying Rs. 6.40 Lakh per trommel per month.
The trommel machines are very simple in fabrication and can be fabricated as per the design mentioned in CPCB guidelines by local fabricators.
Instead of having multiple machines, it is advisable to have a single trommel of 16-20 MM bore size screen and reject conveyer should have blower. This will reduce the cost due to multiple trommeling. Also, to utilise the Refused Derived Fuel (‘RDF’) recovered from this process should be made free from dust. Thereafter RDF can be bundled and sent to waste-to-energy plant and cement industries for further utilisation.
The recovered soil from the bio-mining/bio-remediation process can be used in filing the dead mines so as afforestation in the area can take place. Secondly, it can be used by National Highway Authorities/State Road construction agencies and local bodies in sub-base filing.
Local bodies can install number of trommels at bio-remediation site based on availability of land and with time they can increase the number so as to complete the process as soon as possible.
Once the bio-mining and bio-remediation process starts, dumping of fresh garbage should be stopped at the legacy waste dumpsites, local bodies may identify a separate piece of land to process the fresh garbage through various processes mentioned in Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and guidelines issued by the CPCB.”
11. In-Charge, Member Secretary, CPCB has similar view. Chief Secretary, Delhi suggests that a functional model may be preferred to any other option which has not been experienced on the ground.
12. We find merit in the model followed by Indore Municipal Corporation, the views of Member Secretary, CPCB and the Chief Secretary, Delhi. This opinion is also in consonance with the SWM Rules as well as the CPCB Guideline on Legacy Waste February 2019 and recent orders of this Tribunal. A conjoint reading of Rule 15 (zj), Rule 15(zk) and Clause J of Schedule I of the SWM Rules leaves room for capping of old dump sites, only in cases where there is “absolute absence of potential of bio-mining and bio-remediation” and not in cases of present nature where bio-mining and bio-remediation is possible. In cases of present nature, both ex-situ and in-situ bio-mining options can be exercised according to Indore Municipal Corporation, which is not only environmentally safe but cost effective. Though plea for capping legacy waste dumpsites is being raised frequently as a convenient mode, there may be hardly any situation when bio-remediation is not possible. The option of capping of legacy wastes, which has huge environmental and health consequences, in practical terms is no option at all, except for inert waste, which again is to be disposed in a scientific secured landfill. According to Indore Municipal Corporation, bio-mining as a treatment option is environmentally safe and does not require recurrent costs on account of leachate treatment in Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP). Furthermore, only peripheral leachate can be taken to the ETP and leachate percolating underneath the dumpsite contaminates ground water and water in subterranean space. Bio-mining as a treatment option in comparison to engineering capping of legacy wastes, is not only environmentally safe and holistic but also meets the yardstick of fiscal prudence and propriety.”
33. Applying the above principle to the present case, we reject the plea of the State and direct that instead of capping of the dump site, it is imperative to do bio-mining and bioremediation in the interest of environment and to save valuable scarce public resource in the form of land. The land can be used for setting up integrated waste processing facilities and developing green belt or bio-diversity park. If the State/Corporation does not have funds, the State may consider monetizing a part of the land to raise revenue for the purpose, after following due process of law. In any case, capping cannot be permitted.
34. We find that steps taken for legacy waste remediation are not adequate. The work has not even commenced at 138 out of 140 sites which is a matter of serious concern. The timeline needs to be consistent with the statutory rules as well as the orders of this Tribunal. The timeline 2025 proposed by the State of Telangana needs to be preponed accordingly.
35. There remains gap of 4506 TPD for Telangana in terms of current generation and treatment of solid waste which is endangering environment, adversely affecting public health and posing serious threat to life. No firm commitment to remedy the gap consistent with the statutory Rules specially the timelines has been put forth, as expected in terms of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal. Thus, suitable remedial measures need to be adopted in the matter.”
4. As mentioned in the order sought to be reviewed, the proceedings were transferred to this Tribunal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.09.2014 in Writ Petition No. 888/1996, Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, The said order also refers to earlier judgments in (2000) 2 SCC 679 and (2004) 13 SCC 538 containing observation that absence of waste disposal is resulting in slum creation and that the States, PCBs and local bodies have ignored the issue. The Rules are not being complied with inspite of mandate of law to secure clean environment as observed in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand (1980) 4 SCC 162 and B.L. Wadhera v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 594.
5. The Tribunal, vide order dated 22.12.2016 O.A. No. 199/2014 2016 SCC OnLine NGT 2981, directed all the States/UTs to follow SWM Rules, 2016 in terms of the timelines laid down therein. In this background, the scope of proceedings before the Tribunal post 22.12.2016 is limited to execution. The Tribunal could not go behind the said order. The Tribunal passed earlier orders dated 20.08.2018, 16.01.2019 which attained finality. It is thereafter, in the presence of Chief Secretary, Telangana, order dated 14.02.2020 was passed on due consideration. Thus, the plea that the State of Telangana had taken irreversible steps prior to the order is not factually correct.
6. We have noted that the applicant filed Civil Appeal No(s). ______ of 2020 (Diary No(s). 11490/2020) wherein following order was passed:
“Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there are certain issues which have not been considered by the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
Learned senior counsel seeks and is granted permission to withdraw this appeal with liberty to approach the NGT by filing an application for review of the Order dated 14.2.2020 passed by the NGT in Original Application No. 606 of 2018.
Liberty is given to the Appellants to approach this Court in case of dismissal of the review by challenging the order dated 14.02.2020 as well.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.”
7. From the above, it is seen that the issue raised has been duly considered earlier and the review application merely seeks re-hearing. The averments in the review application that the action of capping had been undertaken much after coming into force of the 2016 Rules are not factually correct. As per the application, the design was prepared in March, 2018 much after the orders of this Tribunal requiring following 2016 Rules. Thus, the applicant acted in violation of law and to the detriment of the environment inspite of rules and binding orders to the contrary. As already mentioned, the design prepared and further steps taken result in irreversible damage to the environment by way of continuing generation of leachate, adversely affecting the groundwater.
8. Accordingly, even on reconsideration of the matter, in view of earlier binding orders of this Tribunal on the subject, the statutory mandate and the need for environmental protection, there is no merit in the review application. As already noted, it is not shown to be factually correct that when capping was done, it was legally permissible. The Tribunal has considered the issue earlier and rejected the very same contention not only of the applicants but also of several States/local bodies including Delhi Municipal Corporations, who find it convenient to avoid the mandate of law and to resort to capping, illegally and to the prejudice of the environment.
9. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
10. In view of main order, IA Nos. 31/2021 and 32/2021 also stand disposed of.