CAQM directs Delhi-NCR govts to assess landfill fire risk
New Delhi
The Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) on Tuesday directed the Delhi-NCR state governments to carry out a fire-risk assessment of sanitary landfills and dump sites, following proper identification, categorisation, and demarcation of waste. It directed them to adopt preventive measures, including the installation of CCTV cameras and methane gas detectors, to prevent future landfill fires, as it could lead to a spike in particulate matter and release harmful gases such as NO2, SO2, CO, dioxins and furans.
The pollution body also asked agencies to carry out extensive biomining or bioremediation at landfills to liquidate the legacy waste, as per the targeted timelines already submitted to the Supreme Court.
'Ensure adequate storage of sand or chemical fire extinguishing means for immediate action, whenever initiation of fire is sensed, besides dedicated fire tenders and other fire safety measures, specifically during the summer season, which is more prone to SLF and dump site fires,' said CAQM, adding periodic mock drills were needed to prevent recurrence of such incidents.
The CAQM said municipal solid waste needed to be collected, segregated and processed in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and directed states to adopt zero tolerance towards open waste burning.
Co-firing of paddy straw pellets beyond NCR: CAQM
In a specific directive to districts outside NCR, the CAQM asked brick kilns to co-fire paddy straw-based pellets, setting a deadline of co-firing 50% of such pellets by November 1, 2028. The deadline is 20% co-firing of paddy straw-based pellets by November 1, 2025, and 30% by November 1, 2026, it said.
The initiative aims to power such facilities, rather than relying on thermal plants.
'The state Governments of Punjab and Haryana have been instructed to issue requisite directions in this context mandating the above stipulation for use of paddy straw-based bio-mass pellets or briquettes in brick kilns located in non-NCR areas,' CAQM said in a statement, adding action taken in compliance with these directions will be apprised to the commission every month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Expands Reverse Discrimination Claims for Majority Groups, ET LegalWorld
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's "largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups."Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans."Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing "background circumstances" that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such Jackson wrote that "this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute."
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Companies: Supreme Court Blocks Mexico's Gun Lawsuit Against US Companies, ET LegalWorld
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday spared two American gun companies from a lawsuit by Mexico's government accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States. The justices in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Elena Kagan overturned a lower court's ruling that had allowed the lawsuit to proceed against firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms. The lower court had found that Mexico plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels, harming its government. Advt Advt Join the community of 2M+ industry professionals Subscribe to our newsletter to get latest insights & analysis. Download ETLegalWorld App Get Realtime updates Save your favourite articles Scan to download App The justices embraced the argument made by the companies for dismissal of Mexico's suit under a 2005 U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided in 2024 that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these Supreme Court decided that while it has little doubt that U.S. companies are aware of some unlawful sales to Mexican gun traffickers, Mexico's lawsuit failed to allege that the companies had aided and abetted such illegal firearms sales by deliberately helping to bring about the transactions."Mexico's plausible allegations are of 'indifference' rather than assistance," Kagan wrote. "They are of the manufacturers merely allowing some unidentified 'bad actors' to make illegal use of their wares." The case came to the Supreme Court at a complicated time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues on-again, off-again tariffs on Mexican goods. Trump has also accused Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the lawsuit, filed in Boston in 2021, accused the two companies of violating various U.S. and Mexican laws. Mexico claims that the companies have deliberately maintained a distribution system that included firearms dealers who knowingly sell weapons to third-party, or "straw," purchasers who then traffic guns to cartels in suit also accused the companies of unlawfully designing and marketing their guns as military-grade weapons to drive up demand among the cartels, including by associating their products with the American military and law enforcement. The gun companies said they make and sell lawful avoid its lawsuit being dismissed under the 2005 law, Mexico was required to plausibly allege that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales and that such conduct was the "proximate cause" - a legal principle involving who is responsible for causing an injury - of the harms claimed by Mexico. The Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the case on March 4, declined to resolve the proximate cause question after finding that Mexico's suit failed to adequately allege aiding and Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, vowed that Mexico will continue pursuing its legal fight."While we are disappointed with the decision from this Supreme Court, we are convinced of the strength of our arguments and the evidence that upholds them, and we are encouraged by the support at home and abroad for Mexico's actions," he in the lawsuit had sought monetary damages of an unspecified amount and a court order requiring Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms to take steps to "abate and remedy the public nuisance they have created in Mexico."The Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group that backed the U.S. gun companies in the case, welcomed Thursday's ruling."The lawsuit, dreamt up by multiple gun control groups, had one goal - bankrupt the American firearms market by allowing civil liability to apply for the criminal misuse of its products," the group said in a social media post. "Thankfully the Supreme Court stepped in and squashed it."Gun violence fueled by trafficked U.S.-made firearms has contributed to a decline in business investment and economic activity in Mexico and forced its government to incur unusually high costs on services including healthcare, law enforcement and the military, according to the a country with strict firearms laws, has said most of its gun homicides are committed with weapons trafficked from the United States and valued at more than $250 million Perez Ricart, an international affairs researcher at Mexico's Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), criticized the ruling."Once again, the industry is shielded. It doesn't matter how many bullets cross the border or how many people are killed on the Mexican side. Bullets are not the only things that kill; so does the legal impunity guaranteed by Washington," Ricart said in a social media post.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Prabhakar Rao likely to return to India on June 9
Hyderabad: Former Special Intelligence Bureau (SIB) chief Prabhakar Rao, prime accused in the phone tapping case, is expected to come to India on June 9 from the US. It is learnt that Rao approached the Indian embassy in the US and is all set to get his passport. The Supreme Court had recently directed authorities to restore his passport to allow him to travel to India. The SC also protected him from arrest, but directed him to return to India within three days of obtaining his travel documents. The passport had been revoked following a request to Centre from Hyderabad police as he had been avoiding questioning by cops by staying in the US citing ill health. Soon after Hyderabad police registered a case of phone tapping in 2024, Rao had fled to the US.
