The Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board’s new investigation into the asbestos waste landfill at Kalhara, near Kymore, has reopened a public-health question that has remained unresolved for almost a decade: how far did contamination spread, what remains below the ground, and who is responsible for making the affected landscape safe? The inspection began as local residents prepared around 700 compensation claim files before the T&N Asbestos Trust.
An MPPCB regional officer and a scientist visited the landfill, but the site was difficult to access because vegetation and trees had covered the approach over the years. That detail is more than a logistical complication. At a contaminated site, natural regrowth can conceal waste, restrict inspection and make it harder to establish whether hazardous material remains exposed or has migrated below the surface. The present condition of the landfill, however, has not yet been established by the fresh probe.
The immediate investigation is taking place against the findings of a 2016 study by Canadian environmental consultancy ECOH. That study identified asbestos contamination in Kymore and Kalhara and estimated that 7,000 to 8,000 residents could have been exposed. It was based on site reconnaissance, historical information, aerial photographs, mapping of visible asbestos debris and surface-soil sampling. The report described itself as a preliminary visual assessment, not an exhaustive investigation of contamination below ground.
That limitation is central to the current situation. ECOH found chrysotile asbestos in almost all samples collected from visibly affected locations, with concentrations ranging from 2% to 70%. At the Kalhara hazardous-waste landfill, three samples recorded concentrations of 70%, 25% and 70%. The samples were taken from soil between the surface and 10 centimetres below it, and were analysed by EMSL Analytical in New Jersey using the US EPA 600/R-93/116 Polarized Light Microscopy method.
The findings were not confined to a restricted industrial plot. ECOH estimated visible surface contamination at about 5.62 lakh square metres in Kymore village and 3,900 square metres at the Kalhara landfill. Asbestos-containing debris was reported in playing fields, residential yards, agricultural fields and a naturalised area north of Tilak Chowk Road. The report warned that exposed material could be disturbed by residents, potentially mobilising fibres that could be inhaled. It described exposure in public places such as school playgrounds, residential backyards and sidewalks as a significant concern.
The geography of the reported contamination changes the administrative character of the problem. This is not only a matter of managing an old industrial waste site. Once hazardous material is present in residential areas, agricultural fields and public spaces, responsibility extends across pollution control, land management, public health, local administration and any institution involved in remediation or compensation. The supplied report does not establish how these responsibilities were divided after the 2016 findings, but the present probe indicates that the contamination question has not been closed.
What the 2016 study did not establish may be as important as what it found. ECOH said it did not know the lateral or vertical extent of asbestos contamination below the surface, or whether groundwater had been affected. It recommended detailed soil and groundwater investigations, followed by a site-specific quantitative health-risk assessment. The current MPPCB inspection therefore has the potential to determine whether the earlier surface findings remain visible, whether the landfill has changed, and what additional sampling is required. The report supplied for this story does not say that fresh samples have yet been collected or that groundwater contamination has been confirmed.
This distinction matters because surface evidence cannot by itself answer the full risk question. Visible debris can identify locations requiring immediate attention, but it cannot establish the total volume of buried waste or the movement of contamination through soil and water. It also cannot determine the complete set of exposure pathways for residents. ECOH’s recommendations connected these questions: subsurface investigation, groundwater testing and a health-risk assessment would be needed before a site-specific remediation plan could be finalised.
The scale of the potential response was already apparent in the 2016 remediation options. ECOH examined excavation and off-site disposal of the upper one metre of contaminated soil, as well as partial excavation of the upper 30 centimetres followed by a one-metre clean-soil cap and a geomembrane to prevent fibres from reaching the surface. Across the identified contaminated areas, the excavation option involved an estimated 566,405 cubic metres of soil, weighing approximately 1.02 million metric tonnes.
The preliminary capital cost was estimated at about Rs 591 crore for excavation and off-site disposal, and about Rs 349 crore for the capping option. These figures excluded engineering, additional sampling, subsurface investigations and long-term monitoring. For the Kalhara landfill alone, ECOH estimated approximately Rs 5.64 crore for excavation and removal and Rs 4.29 crore for capping. The report estimated that either option could be implemented in about six months, while also warning that long-term inspection and maintenance would be required.
Those estimates should not be read as a current project budget. They were based on the 2016 study and its assumptions, and the supplied report does not indicate that any remediation option has been approved, funded or tendered. They do, however, show why a contamination finding can remain unresolved even when its broad outline is known. Remediation requires not just a technical choice, but also a verified map of the affected area, a disposal pathway for hazardous material, financing, institutional ownership and a system for monitoring the site after the visible work ends.
The compensation effort adds another layer. Local resident Sarwar Khan told the Times of India that case files for around 300 people had been prepared, while another 400 residents were waiting for files to be prepared. The claims are being assembled before the T&N Asbestos Trust. The report identifies the claimants as local residents and says they are considered eligible for claims from the trust, but it does not provide the trust’s assessment criteria, the status of any individual claims or the relationship between compensation decisions and the environmental investigation.
That separation is important for governance. Compensation can recognise harm or support affected families, but it does not by itself establish whether contamination remains in soil, whether groundwater has been affected or whether public spaces are safe. Conversely, an environmental probe can identify risks without resolving the claims of residents who say they have been exposed. The two processes may proceed together, but they answer different questions and require different evidence.
The Kymore-Kalhara case also illustrates a recurring difficulty in managing legacy industrial contamination: the delay between discovery and decision-making can alter the physical site and weaken the visibility of the original evidence. In this case, the approach to the landfill has become overgrown, while the earlier study relied substantially on visible debris and surface sampling. The longer a site remains without a clearly documented monitoring and remediation pathway, the more difficult it can become to distinguish old contamination from later movement, concealment or disturbance. The supplied material does not establish why the fresh probe began now, beyond its connection with the reported local claims and the MPPCB visit.
The present investigation therefore has three linked tasks. It must establish the current condition of the Kalhara landfill; determine whether the 2016 findings remain representative and where new samples are required; and clarify whether contamination extends below the surface or affects groundwater. The public record described in the supplied report does not yet show the results of any of these steps. Until they are completed, the full scale of the risk and the appropriate remediation method remain unresolved.
The immediate institutional milestone is the MPPCB’s investigation following the site visit by its regional officer and scientist. The next significant evidence will be whether the board conducts fresh soil and groundwater testing, publishes updated findings and defines a remediation or monitoring plan. At the same time, the preparation of around 700 compensation files will test how the T&N Asbestos Trust processes claims linked to the Kymore-Kalhara contamination. What the available evidence confirms is that asbestos was documented in surface samples and public-facing areas in 2016. What remains to be established is the present and underground extent of the contamination, the exposure pathways and the official route to long-term site management.
