Zero Liquid Discharge Standards for Distilleries in Uttar Pradesh, India – Propriety and Rationale.

Zero Liquid Discharge Standards for Distilleries in Uttar Pradesh, India – Propriety and Rationale.

                                                                                              By        

Dr. Yashpal Singh

Abstract

This paper discusses a recent Office Memorandum issued by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board for distilleries in the State of Uttar Pradesh in India. The Office Memorandum  which has come into force from 28-01-2020, has prescribed standards for achieving Zero Liquid discharge from distilleries under the powers vested in the  State Board through Section 17(1)(m) of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1974 and Rule 3(2) of the Environment Protection Rules of 1986 and intends to implement that concentration and incineration shall be the sole technology available for the treatment of Distillery Spent Wash, across the Board. It also intends that no other treatment technologies, including use in Agriculture or Land reclamation , shall be available for New Distilleries or distilleries going in for expansion. The paper also analyses the powers and limitations of the State Boards in terms of Standard setting under provisions of the Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1974 and the Environment Protection Act 1986 and the propriety of an Office Memorandum being used as a tool for prescribing standards under Law. It also examines the environmental sustainability of Concentration and Incineration as treatment options and discusses the views of the Honourable NGT , the CPCB and the MoEF&CC in the matter and suggests that ideally the MoEF & CC and the Boards may like to  prescribe standards only for  the maximum allowable concentrations of Pollutants for disposal into inland surface waters, disposal into sea, on land for irrigation, on land for sodic land reclamation, on land for presown land application (OTCLA), for use in  biocomposting, for sale of spent wash as fertiliser etc. Technology options and ZLD directions, as also directed by the NGT, could be left to be practiced on a case to case basis as per directions of the Honourable NGT.  Protocols could be brought out by the CPCB to ensure compliance to standards. The paper suggests that the application of the Office Memorandum may require a rethink .

Introduction

The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board has issued an Office Memorandum vide number H46886/V-1/Gen-42/2020 dated 28-01-2020 [Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) 2020] which prescribes standards for achieving Zero effluent discharge from Distilleries in U.P. The O.M. has been issued in exercise of powers under Section 17(1)(m) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and under Rule 3 (2) of the Environment Protection Rules 1986 . 

It has been prescribed [Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) 2020] that new molasses based distilleries including yeast manufacturing units/ increase in production in existing molasses based distilleries including yeast manufacturing units shall achieve Zero Liquid discharge by

1. Concentrating and incinerating the spent wash, raw/ bio-methanated spent wash to be concentrated by multi-effect evaporator (MEE) (minimum 45-60% solids ) and incinerated in Boiler.
2. Concentrating and utilizing the spent wash in bio-composting with press mud shall not be allowed.

The O.M. may have far reaching consequences on the health of distilleries in U.P., and the prescribed technology, not being the best in terms of the overall carbon and water footprint may not be viable, sustainable and conducive to environmental Management in the long run.

The Office Memorandum  is not a direction under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 or an order under sections 28 and 29  of the Water Act [Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (a)] and therefore is not eligible for appeal before the Honourable NGT under the NGT Act of 2010. The order is not yet a consent condition issued to any particular industry and hence is not eligible for appeal before the Appellate Authority under provisions of Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974.

The propriety of an Office Memorandum being used to prescribe standards under the Water Act may also require to be examined with reference to Sections 64.2. ‘k’ and 64.2. ‘l’ of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)  Act 1974, [(Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (a)]   which mandate that the State Government will frame rules with regards to matters to be taken into account in granting or refusing Consents. Standards are an important matter to be considered before granting or refusing consent and therefore the standards may need to be notified formally as per Law by the State Government.

The Office Memorandum [Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) 2020] mentions that “In exercise of the Power conferred under clause ‘m’ of subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of Environmental (Protection)Rules 1986, U.P. Pollution Control Board hereby prescribes standards for achieving Zero Liquid discharge for distillery sector.”

Applicability of Section 17(1) m of the Water Act 1974 and subrule (2) of rule 3 of the E.P.Rules 1986 in prescribing these standards for achieving Zero Liquid discharge for distillery sector.

An important issue to be  considered is whether the State Boards can prescribe standards for imposing ZLD under the provisions of section 17, clause ‘m’ of subsection 1 or under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Environmental (Protection)Rules 1986., [Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (b)]

In so far as the application of Clause (m) of subsection (1) of Section 17 is concerned:

Clause (m) of subsection (1) of section 17 does authorize the State Boards “to lay down effluent standards to be complied with by persons while causing discharge of sewage or sullage or both and to lay down , modify or annul effluent standards for the sewage and trade effluents.”

A perusal of the aforesaid powers would immediately suggest that the powers are limited to prescribing standards for the discharge and are not applicable if there is no discharge caused. ZLD restricts the discharge of effluents and hence cannot be regarded as a standard framed under Clause (m) subsection 1, section 17 of the Water Act, 1974 as above.

The Clause (m)  subsection 1, section 17 of the Water Act, 1974 also enables the Board to “lay down, modify or annul effluent standards for the Sewage and Trade Effluents”. “Trade Effluents” are defined under Clause (k) section 2 of the Water Act 1974 as “ Trade Effluent includes any liquid , gaseous or solid substance which is discharged from any premises used for carrying on any industry, operation or process or treatment and disposal system other than domestic sewage”. Here also the intent of the Legislation is to clearly provide the Board with powers only to lay standards for what is being discharged and not for what is not being discharged.

Therefore, section 17 clause (m) of subsection (1) section 17 would only appear to  authorize the State Boards to lay down standards for pollutants ( Quality of effluents) which are discharged from any premises (not processes) and should be limited to that. This does not appear to  give authority to regulate processes or prohibit discharges.

It appears therefore that the issue of the Office Memorandum prescribing Zero Liquid discharge, as a standard, under clause (m) of subsection (1) of section 17 has been misconceived.

On the applicability of powers under sub rule (2) of rule 3 of the Environment Protection Rules 1986. Prescribing Stringent Standards over those prescribed by the MoEF&CC.

Sub rule (2) of rule(3) of the E.P. Rules 1986, [Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (c)] mentions that “ Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1), the Central Board or  a State Board may specify more stringent standards from those provided in Schedules 1 to IV in respect of any specific industry, operation or process depending upon the quality of the recipient system and after recording reasons thereof in writing”.

It would appear from the above that the Board can only specify more stringent standards over those prescribed in Schedules 1 to IV and that too only on a case to case basis.

Currently, only S. No. 15 of Schedule 1 to the Environmental (Protection) Rules 1986, [Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (c)] prescribes the concentration of pollutants to be maintained in the effluents from Distilleries, Malteries and Breweries. It is specified that the concentration of pH should range from 5.5-9.0, Suspended Solids should be less than 100mg/l and BOD less than 30mg/l for inland surface waters including rivers and streams and 100mg/l for disposal on land for irrigation.  It has also been prescribed that efforts will (should) be made to remove colour and odour as far as practicable. No standards for regulating the quantity of effluents to be discharged from premises or technologies to achieve ZLD   have been specified in Schedules 1 to IV as above.

It is apparent from the above that the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board [Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), 2020] has not revised any of the standards prescribed in schedules 1 to 1V of the E.P. Rules 1986 by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change but has introduced standards to achieve ZLD as a new standard. The Office Memorandum by the Board is therefore not of the nature of a stringent  standard prescribed over an existing standard of the MoEF & CC but a fresh order passed under a misunderstood use of powers under subrule (2) of rule (3) of the E.P. Rules of 1986. The Central Government is in the process of prescribing standards and revising S.No. 15 of Schedule 1 of the  E.P.Rules 1986 and has invited comments and suggestions in August, 2018. (Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt. of India, 2018) The standards have not been finalized as yet.

The Quantum of effluents that could be discharged from Distilleries is mentioned in Part B , Schedule VI  of the Environmental (Protection)Rules 1986, which specifies Waste Water Generation Standards and prescribes a wastewater generation limit of 12 KL per KL of Alcohol Produced. It does not specify ZLD. The State Boards are not empowered to make these standards more stringent as the powers under subrule (2) of rule (3) of the E.P. Rules of 1986 is restricted only to standards notified in Ann. 1 to IV and not to Annexure VI.

Since the  Office Memorandum  has not revised any existing standard prescribed by the MoEF and CC and has therefore not complied with the condition that it could revise only those standards which are prescribed by the MoEF & CC ,therefore the use of subrule (2) of rule 3 appears to be misconceived on the part of the U.P.Pollution Control Board Board.

Sub rule (2) of rule (3) of the E.P. Rules 1986 also mentions that “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the Central Board or  a State Board may specify more stringent standards from those provided in Schedules 1 to IV in respect of any specific industry, operation or process depending upon the quality of the recipient system and after recording reasons thereof in writing”.  The proviso therefore enables the State Boards and the CPCB to utilize this power only in an industry specific context, on a case to case basis, based on the quality of the recipient system and after recording reasons thereof in writing. It does not empower the Boards to prescribe stringent standards across the Board and without consideration for each recipient water body and without recording the reasons in writing. The Board has therefore, in this also, incorrectly applied the powers under sub rule (2) of rule 3 of the Environment Protection Rules of 1986.

On the propriety of Process interventions being prescribed as discharge standards.

The memorandum, which seeks to introduce process interventions in the name of stringent standards would appear to be misconceived as the provisions of section 17(1) (m) of the Water Act, 1974 and Rule 3(2) of the E.P. Rules, 1986 are limited in this context and do not empower the Boards to prescribe process interventions as standards.

Process interventions may not even be imposed as conditions of consent by the Pollution Control Boards and the Boards may only impose conditions regarding the outlet and the nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge of the effluent from the land or premises as would be evident from the provisions of section 25.2(4) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974  as follows,

“25.2 (4) The State Board may — (a) grant its consent referred to in sub-section (1), subject to such conditions as it may impose, being– (i) in cases referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 25, conditions as to the point of discharge of sewage or as to the use of that outlet or any other outlet for discharge of sewage; (ii) in the case of a new discharge, conditions as to the nature and composition, temperature, volume or rate of discharge of the effluent from the land or premises from which the discharge or new discharge is to be made;”

Since section 25/26 pertains to use of outlets and to discharges, what needs to be seen is also the applicability of section 25 and the very need for ‘consent’ if no outlet or discharge is permitted. It is felt that restraining industries from discharging any treated effluents or prescribing process interventions may not be a matter of consent conditions and may not be in line with provisions of the Water Act of 1974. An identical observation has been made by the Honourable NGT in its judgment of 2017 when at para 148 (National Green Tribunal 2017) it has directed that, “To impose ZLD on such industries would neither be fair nor just. In fact, it will not be in consonance with the requirement of law under relevant Acts.” The Honourable NGT in this very order has held that the internal management of plants should not be practiced by the regulatory Authorities but it should be ensured that Standards are met.

 The use of an Office Memorandum as a tool for prescribing standards

Section 64 of the Water ( Prevention and Control of Pollution)  Act 1974, empowers the State Government to make rules with respect to matters to be taken into account in granting or refusing consent. Standards are important parts of the decision making process for consents, therefore, any standards to be prescribed by the Boards may be needed to be notified by the respective State Governments under provisions of the Water Act 1974, with amendments in the consent rules and not as an office memorandum by the Board.

An office memorandum is generally used for correspondence with other divisions of an office or in calling for information from or conveying information to employees. It may be used for communicating decisions in certain cases but the decisions need to be properly notified before implementation for the promulgation of statutory rules and orders. In the present case also, the said Office Memorandum is in the nature of an interdepartmental circular issued in favour of the Excise Commissioner, the Under Secretary, Environment, Member Secretary , Central Pollution Control Board, the Chief Environmental Officers and the Regional Officers of the U.P. Pollution Control Board on the subject, without any reference to the individual industries or the Industry Associations.

An office memorandum may not be a legitimate tool to introduce standards for discharge of effluents or override the standards legally notified under the E.P. Act. Standards may have to be formally notified by the State Government before implementation.

Does prescribing technologies for waste management and stopping the flow of treated effluents fall under the ambit of “Discharge Standards” as provided in the Water Act 1974.       

The Office Memorandum by the  U.P. Pollution Control Board aims to impose ZLD across all distilleries in the State and prescribes that all new molasses based distilleries including yeast manufacturing units/ increase in production in existing molasses based distilleries including yeast manufacturing units shall achieve Zero Liquid discharge by:

• Concentrating and incinerating the spent wash. Raw/ bio-methanated spent wash to be concentrated by multi-effect evaporator (MEE)(minimum 45-60% solids ) and incinerated in Boiler.
• Concentrating and utilizing the spent wash in bio-composting with press mud shall not be allowed.

Prescribing technologies for waste management through an Office Memorandum and stopping the flow of treated effluents may not fall under the ambit of “Standards” as provided in Section 25(2) (a) of the Water Act, as it fails to quantify the concentrations beyond which the substance shall not be discharged or emitted, as also prescribed under section 7 of the E.P.Act, 1986. [Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) 2010 b] This also appears to be in consonance with the various directives of the Honourable NGT which prohibit the imposition of ZLD and installation of OCEMS across the Board and also direct that stopping effluents treated to the standards as prescribed, from being discharged, shall be against the provisions of law. The Honourable NGT has also said that industries may be allowed to choose from the basket of Technologies as available. (National Green Tribunal 2014 and National Green Tribunal 2017)

Zero Liquid Discharge through Concentration and Incineration and Sustainability

The  U.P.Pollution Control Board through its Office Memorandum (Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) 2020) is imposing process interventions which have the potential of introducing  highly capital intensive – high carbon technologies with a very high green house  gas potential on a life cycle basis.  ZLD through concentration is an unsustainable technology. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the CPCB had submitted an affidavit before the Honourable NGT on 03-08-2016  in the matter of M.C. Mehta VS Union of India. (Runiwal, D. and Dave S. 2016) The Ministry and the CPCB have submitted here, a comparison of ZLD systems based on concentration and incineration and the conventional treatment systems. It has been submitted before the NGT that the capital cost of ZLD systems is Rs. 18 Crore per MLD with a recurring cost of Rs. 2.25 Lakhs per MLD while the conventional treatment systems have a capital cost of Rs. 2.5 crores and a recurring cost of Rs. 15000 per MLD. It has also been presented to the Honourable NGT that ZLD routes (through concentration) have a very high CAPEX and OPEX with very high evaporation costs and are highly energy intensive with 20-40 KWh/M3 resulting in high carbon foot prints and high land requirements.

Through the Office Memorandum the UPPCB [Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) 2020] is also disallowing bio-composting for new plants while permitting the same for older plants. This appears to be without any rationale.  It is unfair to regard a technology good for half of the distilleries and bad for the other half if environment and compliance to standards is the primary concern. Some other State Boards are permitting this technology of Biocomposting with press mud and discrimination may lead to unhealthy competition and migration of Industry from one State to other states. Bio-composting and Presown Land Application are established sustainable technologies which utilize the fertilizer potential of spent wash and which the Central Pollution Control Board has standardized as environmentally acceptable and for which it has standard protocols [ Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2013; Central Pollution Control Board ( CPCB 2018); Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Govt.of India, 2014. Ann.1] The Office Memorandum therefore may need to be re-examined in terms of economic and environmental sustainability.

The Honourable NGT on ZLD and Online Continuous Emission/Effluent monitoring systems(OCEMS).

The matter regarding ZLD and Online Emission Monitoring Systems has been discussed in details at the NGT and the Honourable NGT has passed the following directions through its judgment pronounced on 13-07-2016 in the Ganga matter, segment 2 ( National Green Tribunal, 2017)

1. “We hold and direct that ZLD (Zero Liquid Discharge) and online monitoring system would not be applied by any of the official Respondents in the present application to the industrial units across the Board. The directions in that behalf shall be on a case to case basis particularly with reference to the load of effluent being discharged, quality of effluents, the anti pollution devices that have been installed or directed to be installed, and the resultant pollution caused by such industrial units and the environmental risk associated with such pollution. This should have reference to the Financial viability as well”.

It may also be noted that the Honourable NGT has also stated at page 490 of this judgment as above that “ZLD should be applied on a case to case basis. The concerned Boards should exercise its technical knowhow to issue appropriate directions in that behalf. The ultimate purpose is prevention and control of Pollution and not an internal management of the plant. Effluent discharge must be strictly within the prescribed norms and the Board in appropriate cases could issue directions with regards to recycle, reuse of the treated effluent appropriately.”

 The NGT therefore has disallowed the intent of the Regulators to intervene in the internal management of the plant.  The Office Memorandum issued by the U.P.Pollution Control Board [ Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), 2020]  is of the nature of a document intending to internally manage the plant processes.

It is therefore apparent that the Honourable NGT ,after also duly considering the  earlier orders passed by the Central Pollution Control Board imposing ZLD (National Green Tribunal, 2017,  Para 144 page 339), has clearly directed that no regulatory authority would impose ZLD and OCEMS across the Board but directions in this behalf should be on a case to case basis after analyzing the financial viability.

The office memorandum issued by the UPPCB therefore does not appear to be incompliance to the directions passed by the Honourable NGT in the matter and may need to be re-examined.

The issue of imposing concentration and incineration as the sole viable technology for spent wash treatment and disposal was raised for the first time in the matter of Krishnakant Singh vs. Simbhaoli Sugar Mills and others. (NGT 2014) The NGT in its orders passed in the above matter (Case no. 299of 2013) on 16-10-14 said that any one or a combination of the technologies stated in the Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Protection (Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, 2003) can be provided by the Board to ensure adherence to the prescribed standards.

Bio-composting and pre-sown land application ( One Time Controlled Land Application) are time tested technologies supported by the Pollution Control Boards and the CPCB has well developed Protocols on these technologies. [Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2003; Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2013; Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Govt.of India, 2014. (Ann.1), Central Pollution Control Board( CPCB) 2018 and  Singh Yashpal 2020.]

The Boards may require ensuring that in terms of statutory proclamations they may need to examine and  comply with the directions of the Honourable NGT in this regards.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests had assured the NGT that it will comply with the orders as may be passed by the NGT regarding ZLD and OCEMS. The Honourable NGT at page 95 of its judgment( Ganga Phase 2)  dated 13-07-2017 (NGT, 2017)  had noted as follows “On 11^th April, 2017, in the Chamber Meeting held in furtherance to the order dated 30^th March, 2017, the Senior Officers of the Ministries, State of U.P. and other stake holders were present and stand of each one of them was recorded in that order which reads as follows (Within the statement as recorded aforesaid, para 13, page 97 makes a specific mention):

13. “Both the conditions i.e. ZLD as well as On Line Monitoring System are pending consideration before NGT and MoEF and CC will comply with its order”.

Similar mention has been made at page 388 which indicates that the Ministry had assured the NGT that it will comply with the orders as may be passed in the matter.

The Honourable NGT( NGT 2017), had considered the earlier directions regarding ZLD issued by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and has observed at pages 339 and 340 of the Ganga Judgment passed on 13-07-17 as follows, “In fact, the CPCB had issued directions to the UPPCB under section 18(1)(b) of the Water Act, 1974 for seeking action plan from industries on implementation of ZLD in identifying industrial sectors in March–April, 2015. It had even issued guidelines for techno-economic feasibility of implementation of ZLD for water polluting industries in June 2015.”

The Honourable NGT at page 344 of its judgment also referred to the MoWR notification prohibiting discharge of treated effluents (Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation,2016) as follows, “The MoWR has issued a Notification dated 7th October, 2016 issued under section 24 of the Act of 1986 where it has been stated that every endeavour will be made to ensure that uninterrupted flow of water is maintained at all the times in the river and no person shall discharge any treated or untreated sewage into river Ganga, its tributaries or on its bank, directly or indirectly. Similarly, restriction has been placed on industrial waste, biomedical waste or any hazardous substance”.

Referring to these two orders and on the viability of ZLD as an option, the Honourable NGT has at para 148 and 149, page 349-352, of its judgment (National Green Tribunal 2017) stated the following:

 “148. From the above discussion, on advantages and disadvantages of the ZLD, it is evident that ZLD cannot be adopted across the board. It must have rationality as its sole criteria, should be unit centric and industry specific oriented. The Sugar or Distillery Industries may be of a huge capacity say discharging 100 MLD per day. They could be a Sugar Industry or Distillery Unit with 10 MLD discharge and thus a very small-scale unit. To apply same yardstick to all would not be feasible and result oriented. They should be assessed on their own performance and function, however, ensuring in all the situations that the effluents permitted to be discharged on land/drain, etc. should be strictly adhering to the prescribed norms. The Board in its advisory capacity may be able to suggest or guide as to the integral technology, which may be feasible for the industries for attaining the prescribed norms. To impose ZLD on such industries would neither be fair nor just. In fact, it will not be in consonance with the requirement of law under relevant Acts. An industry should be permitted to operate, subject to grant of Consent to Operate, by the concerned Board. The CPCB has the competency under law to issue directions under Section 18 of the Water Act. The purpose of empowering Boards with certain powers is to restrict and control pollution. It is not expected from the Boards to stop the natural growth or restrict industries from operating but compliance to the environmental laws is fundamental to exercise of their powers. The Board must take into consideration of the aspects including technology, financial viability, limitations of the unit, process adopted by the industries but in all events ensuring that the discharge of effluents from the unit has to be strictly in compliance with the prescribed standards. No industries, big or small can be permitted to pollute the groundwater, drains, water bodies and environment.

To put it simply, the ZLD directives cannot be applied across the board. On the one hand, it would be violative of the rights of the parties while on the other would not be in consonance with the provisions of the relevant environmental acts. ZLD should be applied on case to case basis. The concerned boards should exercise its technical know-how to issue appropriate directions in that behalf. The ultimate purpose is prevention and control of pollution and not an internal management of the plant. Effluent discharge must be strictly within the prescribed norms and the Board in appropriate cases could issue directions with regard to recycle, reuse of the treated effluent appropriately. The ZLD as inferred from the notification dated 7th October, 2016 is incapable of being enforced across the Board without reference to the member industries and other relevant aspects afore-stated.”

ZLD through concentration and incineration is an unsustainable technology. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the CPCB have had similar views as submitted  in the  affidavit before the Honourable NGT on 03-08-2016 (Runiwal, D. and Dave, S.  2016) in the matter of M.C. Mehta VS Union of India where it has been presented to the Honourable NGT that ZLD routes (through concentration) have a very high CAPEX and OPEX with very high evaporation costs and are highly energy intensive with 20-40 KWh/M3 resulting in high carbon foot prints and the land requirement is high.

The UPPCB [Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), 2020] has also decided to disallow bio-composting with press mud for new distilleries and in the expansion of old distilleries, through the impugned office memorandum. The issue of Bio-composting has been deliberated continuously at the MoEF and CC, the NGT and the CPCB and bio composting with press mud is allowed across India. The CPCB has very recently revised its earlier protocol and prescribed standard operating procedures (SOP) for Bio-composting operations for molasses based Distilleries in August 2018. [Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2018] Though not yet finally notified, the draft standards issued, for public comments, by the MoEF and CC on the 6^th of July 2018 also suggest that bio composting is an acceptable means to take care of distillery spent wash. (The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Govt. of India, 2018) The Draft standards suggest that all molasses based distilleries will have the option of either concentrating the spent wash in MEE and/or R.O. systems to achieve 45-60% solids and incinerated in Boilers or they could concentrate the spent wash in MEE/RO systems to 40% by volume with 30% solids and convert to bio-compost by mixing with press mud. Stand alone distilleries have not been proposed as eligible for bio-composting. The MoEF&CC has not yet finalized these standards.     The Ministry of Agriculture has included biocompost as an organic manure through an amendment in the Fertiliser Control Order in 2016. ( Singh Yashpal, 2020, pages 240/241)

The U.P. Pollution Control Board, in intending to disallow bio-composting is promoting concentration and incineration which have been admitted by the CPCB, before the NGT, as being highly unsustainable technologies with a very high carbon foot print. Concentration and incineration also admittedly add to the production costs by Rs. 8 to 9 per litre of alcohol. The high energy inputs, operational and management problems, disposal of solids, extremely high Capex and environmental un-sustainability of concentration and incineration make use in agriculture, economically and environmentally a more sustainable option.

Utilisation in Agriculture – A sustainable Technology

The utilization of distillery effluents in agriculture is an accepted international practice which has improved crop yields, reduced dependence on chemical fertilizers and also helped in soil reclamation. The Central Pollution Control Board [Central Pollution Control Board (C.P.C.B.) 2008] has accepted that the reuse and recycle of wastes for agriculture would not only help to reduce the pollution and the requirement of fresh water for such use but would also supplement the much needed nutrients and organic manure to plants.  Mahawar , 2007 has stated that traditionally, spent wash has been used for irrigation of crops and for composting with press mud and protocols have been developed for both ferti-irrigation and One Time Controlled Land Application.

Amongst the major advantages of using treated waste waters for irrigation include the avoided cost of providing for raw water, savings in the cost of fertilizers, savings in cost of wastewater treatment, lower carbon and water footprints , reduced water and land pollution and improvements in soil properties and fertility and increased crop yields. ( Sullivan,R.H., 1973; Webb and Chapman, 1987; Kulkarni et.al.,1987;  Devarajan and Oblisamy, 1994; Joshi et.al.,1996; Paula et.al.,1999; Raman et.al., 2002; Baskar et.al.,2003; Joshi, 2002; Kuntal et.al., 2004; Kaushik et.al., 2005;  Nagaraj and Kumar, 2007;Sathish et. al., 2013; Sinha et.al, 2014 ; Ravindra et.al., 2016 and Singh Yashpal, 2020.)

Many scientists   (Neves et.al.1983;Fillip and Muller,1984 and Lakshamanan and Gopal, 1996) have observed that the biological activity of soils is positively affected by the application of distillery effluents with increased microbiological activity. Tauk et.al.1990; Lal, 1990 and  Goyal and Kapoor, 1995 have observed that the soil enzymatic activity increased when spent wash was applied. Devarajan et.al.,1993 have observed that when applied to soils, the colour of the effluents is amenable to microbial and photo degradation without impacting adversely the biological composition of the soil. Vidyarthi, A., 2011 has stated that biomethanated spent wash with a B.O.D. of less than 7000 mg/l can be used in presown land application. The Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India, 2014 states that One Time Controlled Land application of Biomethanated Spent wash, as per the CPCB protocol has not demonstrated any harmful effect on soil fertility and ground water quality.

Singh Yashpal 2020 has reviewed almost 362 scientific and other publications   for his book entitled, ‘Distillery Spent Wash and its utilization in Agriculture’ and states that, concentration and incineration may not be the best of options in terms of sustainability and climate change considerations. He says that Distillery spent wash does not contain any toxic heavy metals and being of plant origin and rich in nutrients serves as a good fertilizer for crops, more effective than the inorganic or mixed fertilizers being used by farmers. The energy, fertilization and irrigation potential of distillery effluent has helped the industry to recycle wastes and bring down pollution as a result of which the sector has been able to build better social acceptability. Utilisation of distillery effluents in agricultural fields either as biocompost, ferti-irrigation or one time land application creates organic fertilization, reduces the pH, increases the availability of nutrients, increases water retention and also improves the physical properties of soil. The ammonification, nitrification and enzyme activities of the soil have been observed to increase augmenting thereby the N availability in soil. Significant crop yield enhancement has been demonstrated on application of spent wash to soils. The color of effluent is amenable to microbial and photo degradation in soil. Spent wash irrigation may also lower the incidence of insect pests. Spent wash could also be used for composting the trash in fields and for reclamation of sodic lands. Nutrient recycling through the application of vinasse and filter cake to sugar cane crops in Brazil has reduced the consumption of fertilizers as compared to other crops. In Australia spent wash is blended with additional crop nutrients and sold as manure. The Mexican Government program for ferti-irrigation has achieved water saving of 40% and an energy reduction of 32%. The program has also helped to increase the harvested area by 18% and the yield by 30% giving an internal rate of return of 16% to the Farmers.

Biocomposting with or without   biomethanation ( without concentration), one time controlled land application and sodic land reclamation are amongst a few environmentally sustainable technologies with a low carbon and water foot print which have never been found wanting in terms of their technical efficacy. These should not be withdrawn but be allowed to continue as technology options.  ZLD has been disallowed by the Honourable NGT. The UPPCB has failed to record the reasons why in spite of the universal acceptability of composting, the Board has chosen to disallow composting.

There is no dearth of press mud in the country. (U.P. had a surplus of 3560128 MT in 2017-18 and Maharashtra had a surplus of 1860207 MT in 2017-18 and even stand alone units could gain access to press mud. Therefore disallowing distillery units from practicing bio-composting in spite of an assured supply of press mud would appear unfair. Decisions however could also be taken on a case to case basis.  Contrary to the directions of the Honourable NGT, the decisions taken by the Board have not taken into consideration the cost benefits, ecological sustainability, financial viability and limitations of the individual units.

Imposing ZLD across the Board is in contravention to the Judgement of the Honourable NGT. If management and monitoring are perceived to be problematic, it may not be sufficient reason for introduction of unsustainable technologies with high carbon and water footprints and additional cost inputs as compared to the sustainable technologies like bio-methanation, OTCLA, bio-composting or Sodic land reclamation. Regulation and governance may need to be stepped up to ensure compliance rather than discarding a sustainable technology just because some people do not comply.

Ideally the MoEF & CC and the Boards may like to  prescribe only the maximum allowable concentrations for disposal into inland surface waters, into sea,  on land for irrigation, on land for sodic land reclamation, on land for presown land application (OTCLA), for biocomposting, for sale of spent wash as fertiliser etc. Technology options and ZLD directions, as also directed by the NGT, could be left to be practiced by the individual industry and the State Board, on a case to case basis as per directions of the Honourable NGT.  Protocols could be brought out by the CPCB to ensure compliance to standards.

Conclusion

Imposing Zero Liquid Discharge through concentration and incineration as a standard and through an Office Memorandum in the State of Uttar Pradesh, on the 28^th of January 2020, has been done on a misconceived understanding of provisions of clause ‘m’ of subsection (1) of Section 17 of the Water (Prevention and control of Pollution)Act 1974 and subrule (2) of rule 3 of Environmental (Protection)Rules 1986. Disallowing all other accepted technologies, hitherto approved by the CPCB/MoEF&CC and imposing Zero Liquid Discharge across the Board has also been in contravention to the directions passed by the Honourable NGT in this regards in 2014(National Green Tribunal, 2014) when it said that any one or a combination of technologies as prescribed in the Charter on Corporate Responsibility   for Environmental Protection could be used by the distilleries and in  2017 (National Green Tribunal, 2007) when it directed that from the discussions on advantages and disadvantages of the ZLD, it is evident that ZLD cannot be adopted across the board. It must have rationality as its sole criteria, should be unit centric and industry specific oriented. The Office Memorandum has also without sufficient reason introduced the use of unsustainable technologies with high carbon and water footprints and additional cost inputs as compared to alternate sustainable technologies like bio-methanation, One Time Controlled Land Application, bio-composting  or  Sodic  land reclamation, which are more environment friendly and never been found wanting by the regulators in terms of their scientific efficiencies . Protocols are already available.

There appears to be a need to prescribe only maximum allowable concentrations of pollutants to be discharged on inland surface waters, into sea,  on land for irrigation, on land for sodic land reclamation, on land for presown land application (OTCLA), for biocomposting, for sale of spent wash as fertiliser etc. Standard Protocols could be brought out by the CPCB to ensure compliance to standards. Regulation and governance may need to be stepped up to ensure compliance rather than discarding a sustainable technology just because of management issues.

The application of the Office Memorandum may, therefore, require a rethink.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bihar State Pollution Control Board, 2013. Distillery Processes and Environmental Concerns. Envis News letter. September 2013. PP 1-12.
2. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2001. Management of Distillery Wastewater, 2001. Resource Recycling Series RERES/4/2001-2002.Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.
3. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Ministry of Environment and Forests 2003. Charter on Corporate Responsibility for Environmental Pollutions. Action Points for 17 categories -2003-full text.pdf.pp.1-32.
4. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2005. Protocol for one-time controlled land application of treated post bio-methanated distillery spentwash as liquid manure. Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. April 15, 2005
5. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2008. Guidelines for Water Quality Management, Parivesh Bhawan, Delhi. org/content/e0808.pdf. January 2008
6. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (a). Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notifications issued there under. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Act No. 6 of 1974. pp.1-43.
7. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (b). Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notification issued there under. The Environment Protection Act 1986. Act no. 29 of 1986. pp. 267-280.
8. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2010 (c). Pollution Control Acts, Rules and Notification issued there under. The Environment (Protection) Rules 1986. pp 389-561.
9. Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB), 2015 a. Directions issued to the Chairman UPPCB under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 to ensure zero liquid discharge from Distilleries. F.No. B-410/PCI-III/DIST/NGRBA/2K14-2K15, 24-2-2015.
10. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2015 b. Revised directions under section 18(1) (b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 to ensure zero liquid discharge from distilleries F.NO. B-410/PCI III/DIS/NGRBA/2 K14-2K15/5025-5035, 7-12-2015
11. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2018. Standard operating procedure (SOP) for Bio-composting operation for Molasses based distilleries. 10-08-2018. pp. 1-10.
12. Devarajan, L. and Oblisamy, G., 1994. Performance of banana (Poovan) under distillery effluent irrigation. South Indian Hort., 32, 324-326pp.
13. Filip, Z. and Muller, H. P., 1984. Effect of fermentation residues on soil micro-organism and some soil properties – a pot experiment. Pedobiologia, 26, 220-228pp.
14. Goyal, S. C. and Kapoor, K. K., 1995. Effect of distillery waste water application on soil microbiological properties and plant growth. Copy right by MKK Publication, ISSN.
15. Joshi, H. C., Pathak, H., Choudhary, A. and Kalra, N., 1996. Distillery effluent as a source of plant nutrients, Prospects and problems. Fertilizer News, 41, 41-47pp.
16. Kaushik, K., Nisha, R., Jagjeeta, K., Kaushik, C. P., 2005. Impact of long and short term irrigation of a sodic soil with distillery effluent in combination with Bio-amendments. Bioresource Technology, 96, 1860-1866pp.
17. Kulkarni, A. D., Modak, H. M., Jadhav, S. J., 1987. Fertilizer from spentwash. Bharatiya Sugar, 12, 17-20pp.
18. Kuntal, M. H., Ashis K., Biswas, A. K. and Misra. K., 2004. Effect of post- methanation effluent on soil physical properties under a soybean-wheat system in a vertisol. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 167, 1860-1866pp.
19. Lakshmanan, A. and Gopal, N. O., 1996. In: Proc. Nat. Symp. Use of Distillery and Sugar Industry Wastes in Agriculture. 28th and 29th October, 1996, AC and R1,Trichy, 51-57pp.
20. Lal, P., 1990. Effect of sewage effluent and sludge on soil enzyme activity and heavy metals accumulation on soil and plants. D. Thesis, Division of Soil Sci. and Agric. Chem, Indian Agric. Res. Inst., New Delhi.
21. Mahawar R.S., 2007. Technical advancement in Waste Water Treatment in Distilleries. Green, September 2007 pp. 3-7. Ed. Dr. Yashpal Singh and Anurag Kumar Yadav, Directorate of Environment, Government of U.P.
22. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, 2018. Environment Protection Amendment Rules 2018. Proposed amendment in S.No. 15 of Schedule 1 of E.P. Rules 1986 relating to fermentation (Distilleries, Malteries and breweries ) Industry. Draft notification G.S.R. 618(E) dated 06-07-2018 pp. 1-5.
23. Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities order, 2016. S.O. 3187 (E) dated 07-10-2016. The Gazette of India. Extraordinary {Part II.3(ii)}.pp.1-40.
24. Nagaraj, M., and Kumar, A., 2007. Distillery wastewater treatment and disposal. Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee– 247 667.
25. National Green Tribunal, 2014. Justice Swatanter Kumar, Chairperson. Judgment delivered on 16-10-2014 in the matter of M.A. No. 879 of 2013 and M.A. number 403 of 2014 in original application no. 299 of 2013. Krishnakant Singh and Social Action for Forest and Development (SAFE) vs NGRBA and others. Paragraphs 32-38.
26. National Green Tribunal, 2017. Justice Swatanter Kumar, Chairperson. Judgment delivered on 13-07-2017 in the matter of OA. No. 200 of 2014 (C. Writ Petition No. 3727/1985, M.A. no. 594/2017 and 598/2017) M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India and others and other related matters. pp 1-543.
27. Neves, M. C. P., Uma, I. P. and Dobereiner, J., 1983. Effect of land disposal of stillage on soil micro-organisms. Revista Brassileria de ciencia do Solo, 7, 131-136pp.
28. Office of the Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India, 2014. A report on Opportunities for Green Chemistry Initiatives: Molasses based distilleries. pp. 1-54. Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi-110011. psa.gov.in/reports.
29. Paula, M. B., Fontes, P. C. R., Carvalho, V. D. and Nogeuira, F. D., 1999. The use of stillage as a source of potassium for potato crop. Horticultura brasileira, 7, 6-8pp.
30. Ramana, S., Biswas, A. K., Singh, A. B., 2002. Effect of distillery effluents on some physiological aspects in maize, Bioresource Technology, 84, 295-297pp.
31. Ravindra, V.M., Math, K.K., Ramya, S.H., Prashanth, K.M. and Hosmath, J.A., 2016. Distillery spent wash as a Potassium source on yield attributes, Yield and Economics of maize. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975, Vol. 8 (18), pp.1318-1321.
32. Runiwal, D. and Dave S. 2016, Compliance statement on behalf of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change and Central Pollution Control Board submitted before the NGT in the matter of O.A. No. 200/2014, M.C. Mehta vs Union of India and others. 03-08-2016. Annexure III. pp 1-7.
33. Sathish, K. S., Melchias, G., Saravanan, P. and Elizabeth, M., 2013. Distillery Wastage Spentwash for Healthy Bio-fertilizer for Modern Agriculture, International Journal of Recent Scientific Research, 4, 290-293pp.
34. Singh Yashpal, 2020. Distillery Spent Wash and its utilization in Agriculture. The Wealthy Waste School India. pp 1-400. ISBN 978-93-5396-249-4 . Amazon Prime.
35. Sinha S.K., Jha C.K. and Kumar V. 2014. Integrated Effect of Biomethanated Distillery Effluent and Bio compost on Soil properties, Juice quality and yield of Sugar cane in Entisol. Sugar Tech (2014) 16:75-79. Springer India.
36. Sullivan, R. H., 1973. Federal and state legislative history and provisions in land treatment on municipal waste water effluents on land and sludges. Joint Conf., Campaign, 111, 9-13 pp.
37. Tauk, A. S., Schoenlein, C. I. H., Patenate, A., 1990. Ecological model of nutrients, microorganisms and enzymatic activity of soil in Cerrado area treated with vinasse. Revister de Microbiologia, 21, 99-108pp.
38. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Lucknow 2020. Office Memorandum no. H46826/64C-1/GOV-42/2020 dated 28/01/2020.
39. Vidyarthi, A., 2011. Management of Distillery in India – An Overview, Central Pollution Control Board, IIT Delhi, September 22, 2011.
40. Webb, W. A. C. and Chapman, L. S., 1987. Dunder as a fertilizer for sugarcane in the central district of Queensland. Proc. Australian Soc. of Sugarcane, 55-58pp. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Lucknow 2020. Office Memorandum no. H46826/64C-1/GOV-42/2020 dated 28/01/2020.