Reverse osmosis (RO):
RO use for wastewater recycling and reuse process has become quite common.
RO systems are compact, simple to operate, and require minimal labor, making them suitable for all systems.
RO can effectively remove nearly all inorganic contaminants, nearly all contaminant ions and most dissolved non-ions from water.
RO is particularly effective when used in series.
Water passing through multiple units can achieve near-zero effluent contaminant concentrations.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
CASE STUDY
Cooling water in Indian Thermal Power Plants (TPPs)
According to CPCB's report on Water Quality in India 1990-2001 status and trends of the total wastewater discharged from all major industrial sectors, 80.3 per cent is cooling water generated just from TPPs. Therefore, closing the cooling water cycle should be the priority of Indian industry and the regulators alike.
Two cooling technologies are in use today:
Once-through cooling system: This system requires the intake of a continual flow of cooling water. The water demand for the once-through system is 30 to 50 times that of a closed cycle system. Most Indian TPPs operate this system.
Closed-cycle systems: This system discharges heat through evaporation in cooling towers and recycles water within the power plant. The water required to do this is comparatively small since it is limited to the amount lost through the evaporative process. Because of the expense associated with closed-cycle cooling, once-through systems are far more common. Some recently commissioned Indian TPPs employ this technology.
In once-through cooling system approximately 100 litres of water is required to produce 1 Kwh electricity. In badly managed TPPs this could go up to 200 litres. In comparison in a closed-cycle system, about 2-3 litres water is required to generate 1 Kwh electricity.
By converting all Indian TPPs to closed-cycle cooling system, by rough estimation almost 65,000 mld or 24 billion m3 fresh water can be saved. This is roughly equivalent to India's total domestic water requirement.
In closed-cycle cooling towers water is lost due to evaporation, windage and drift and intentional blow down. These losses are about 1.5-2 per cent of the recirculation rate. Currently fresh water is used as makeup in Indian industry. But with proper treatment of process wastewater and effective chemical treatment to control corrosion and fouling, wastewater can be easily reused in the cooling towers, reducing the freshwater intake for cooling to zero.
In general, combined primary (sedimentation) and secondary (biological oxidation, disinfection) treatment of wastewater is sufficient to make it suitable for cooling towers. Currently most large and medium scale Indian companies are required to treat their wastewater till secondary treatment to meet the pollution norms. Therefore, in these companies no additional investment is required for treating the wastewater and reusing it in cooling towers.
A wide range of chemicals are available today which can reduce the danger of corrosion and scaling in the cooling tower equipment thereby enabling the use of treated effluent as cooling water. Many companies outside India are using treated effluent as cooling water quite successfully. In places where fresh water is quite costly, use of treated effluent as cooling water presents substantial financial gain for the companies.
WATER RECYCLING AND REUSEWastewater treatment and recycling at industrial level with RO
Agency/project Technology used Capital cost (Rs crore) Operation and maintenance costs (Rs/kl)
Madras Fertilizers Limited, Chennai Size: 15.12 MLD 12.24 MLD is recycled to the cooling towers
and from this plant 3.0 MLD fresh water is
being supplied to Chennai City
Reverse 14.5 40-50
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (earlier known as Madras Refineries Limited) Size: 11.25 MLD
Treated water used for cooling towers
The quality of treated water is BOD-2 mg/l;
TDS- 30 mg/l; COD- 5.0 mg/l
Reverse Osmosis 20 43
GMR Power corporation, Chennai Size: 7. 2 MLD Treated water used for cooling towers Secondary and tertiary treatment followed by Reverse Osmosis 17.5 25
Source: i Showing the world the way, EverythingAboutWater, May-June, 2001
ii Conserving Water at MRL, EverythingAboutWater, May-June, 2001
iii Generating Clean Power, EverythingAboutWater, May-June, 200
Membrane Technologies
A semipermeable membrane is a thin layer of material separating substances when a driving force is applied across it. Once considered a viable technology for desalination, membrane processes are increasingly employed for removal of bacteria and other microorganisms, particulate material, organic and inorganic chemicals and colour and other contaminants. As advances are made in membrane production and module design, capital and operating costs continue to decline. The pressure-driven membrane processes are essentially of four different kinds: micro filtration, ultra filtration, nano filtration and reverse osmosis.
Reverse osmosis (RO): RO use for wastewater recycling and reuse process has become quite common. O systems are compact, simple to operate, and require minimal labor, making them suitable for all systems. RO can effectively remove nearly all inorganic contaminants, nearly all contaminant ions and most dissolved non-ions from water. RO is particularly effective when used in series. Water passing through multiple units can achieve near-zero effluent contaminant concentrations.
The pre-treatment section, where the feed is treated by chemical clarification (precipitation, coagulation/flocculation or flotation) and subsequent filtration, or by filtration and subsequent ultra filtration
The membrane section, where high pressure is applied and the waste water is cross-flowed across the membrane
The post-treatment section, where the permeate is prepared for reuse or discharge, and the concentrate brine is collected for further work-up or for disposal
The capital and operating and maintenance cost of RO systems are become quite competitive with the increasing cost of buying water in water-scarce areas. For instance, the cost of treating municipal sewage water by RO in Chennai is in the range of Rs 25-50 per m3 (See: Wastewater treatment...). This is similar (in cases even lower) to the cost of fresh water charged by the Madras Water Supply & Sewage Board.
According to CPCB's report on Water Quality in India 1990-2001 status and trends of the total wastewater discharged from all major industrial sectors, 80.3 per cent is cooling water generated just from TPPs. Therefore, closing the cooling water cycle should be the priority of Indian industry and the regulators alike.
Two cooling technologies are in use today:
Once-through cooling system: This system requires the intake of a continual flow of cooling water. The water demand for the once-through system is 30 to 50 times that of a closed cycle system. Most Indian TPPs operate this system.
Closed-cycle systems: This system discharges heat through evaporation in cooling towers and recycles water within the power plant. The water required to do this is comparatively small since it is limited to the amount lost through the evaporative process. Because of the expense associated with closed-cycle cooling, once-through systems are far more common. Some recently commissioned Indian TPPs employ this technology.
In once-through cooling system approximately 100 litres of water is required to produce 1 Kwh electricity. In badly managed TPPs this could go up to 200 litres. In comparison in a closed-cycle system, about 2-3 litres water is required to generate 1 Kwh electricity.
By converting all Indian TPPs to closed-cycle cooling system, by rough estimation almost 65,000 mld or 24 billion m3 fresh water can be saved. This is roughly equivalent to India's total domestic water requirement.
In closed-cycle cooling towers water is lost due to evaporation, windage and drift and intentional blow down. These losses are about 1.5-2 per cent of the recirculation rate. Currently fresh water is used as makeup in Indian industry. But with proper treatment of process wastewater and effective chemical treatment to control corrosion and fouling, wastewater can be easily reused in the cooling towers, reducing the freshwater intake for cooling to zero.
In general, combined primary (sedimentation) and secondary (biological oxidation, disinfection) treatment of wastewater is sufficient to make it suitable for cooling towers. Currently most large and medium scale Indian companies are required to treat their wastewater till secondary treatment to meet the pollution norms. Therefore, in these companies no additional investment is required for treating the wastewater and reusing it in cooling towers.
A wide range of chemicals are available today which can reduce the danger of corrosion and scaling in the cooling tower equipment thereby enabling the use of treated effluent as cooling water. Many companies outside India are using treated effluent as cooling water quite successfully. In places where fresh water is quite costly, use of treated effluent as cooling water presents substantial financial gain for the companies.
WATER RECYCLING AND REUSEWastewater treatment and recycling at industrial level with RO
Agency/project Technology used Capital cost (Rs crore) Operation and maintenance costs (Rs/kl)
Madras Fertilizers Limited, Chennai Size: 15.12 MLD 12.24 MLD is recycled to the cooling towers
and from this plant 3.0 MLD fresh water is
being supplied to Chennai City
Reverse 14.5 40-50
Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (earlier known as Madras Refineries Limited) Size: 11.25 MLD
Treated water used for cooling towers
The quality of treated water is BOD-2 mg/l;
TDS- 30 mg/l; COD- 5.0 mg/l
Reverse Osmosis 20 43
GMR Power corporation, Chennai Size: 7. 2 MLD Treated water used for cooling towers Secondary and tertiary treatment followed by Reverse Osmosis 17.5 25
Source: i Showing the world the way, EverythingAboutWater, May-June, 2001
ii Conserving Water at MRL, EverythingAboutWater, May-June, 2001
iii Generating Clean Power, EverythingAboutWater, May-June, 200
Membrane Technologies
A semipermeable membrane is a thin layer of material separating substances when a driving force is applied across it. Once considered a viable technology for desalination, membrane processes are increasingly employed for removal of bacteria and other microorganisms, particulate material, organic and inorganic chemicals and colour and other contaminants. As advances are made in membrane production and module design, capital and operating costs continue to decline. The pressure-driven membrane processes are essentially of four different kinds: micro filtration, ultra filtration, nano filtration and reverse osmosis.
Reverse osmosis (RO): RO use for wastewater recycling and reuse process has become quite common. O systems are compact, simple to operate, and require minimal labor, making them suitable for all systems. RO can effectively remove nearly all inorganic contaminants, nearly all contaminant ions and most dissolved non-ions from water. RO is particularly effective when used in series. Water passing through multiple units can achieve near-zero effluent contaminant concentrations.
The pre-treatment section, where the feed is treated by chemical clarification (precipitation, coagulation/flocculation or flotation) and subsequent filtration, or by filtration and subsequent ultra filtration
The membrane section, where high pressure is applied and the waste water is cross-flowed across the membrane
The post-treatment section, where the permeate is prepared for reuse or discharge, and the concentrate brine is collected for further work-up or for disposal
The capital and operating and maintenance cost of RO systems are become quite competitive with the increasing cost of buying water in water-scarce areas. For instance, the cost of treating municipal sewage water by RO in Chennai is in the range of Rs 25-50 per m3 (See: Wastewater treatment...). This is similar (in cases even lower) to the cost of fresh water charged by the Madras Water Supply & Sewage Board.
Solving the water problem
The key to the problem lies in effective management of water resources. An integrated approach involving water treatment, source reduction, reuse of process water, effluent treatment, recycling of treated effluent and waste-minimisation is urgently required.
Improve process technology: Clean and advanced process technologies can help industry reduce its water demand. For instance, by replacing the conventional bleaching process with totally chlorine bleaching process, pulp and paper companies can almost close their water cycle. But they are costly.
Reuse process water: This involves reusing water in a series, in an open system, for two or more successive but different purposes. This enables use of poor quality water for more than one purpose.
Recirculate process water: Indefinite reuse of same water after treatment for the same purpose. Makeup water is to be used only to replace unavoidable losses. This is far cheaper than installing new process technology and recent technological development has made sure that it can be used by any type of industry.
Rainwater harvesting: This helps industries meet a substantial part of their annual water requirement even as demand on local sources is minimised.
Technology is not the bottleneck
There are enough technologies to solve all water problems and what is more, the prices of these technologies are gradually decreasing. In a nutshell, it quite feasible today for an Indian industry to substantially reduce its water consumption and wastewater discharge by putting efficient systems for recycling and reusing the process water. But for this to happen government policy needs to be overhauled.
Improve process technology: Clean and advanced process technologies can help industry reduce its water demand. For instance, by replacing the conventional bleaching process with totally chlorine bleaching process, pulp and paper companies can almost close their water cycle. But they are costly.
Reuse process water: This involves reusing water in a series, in an open system, for two or more successive but different purposes. This enables use of poor quality water for more than one purpose.
Recirculate process water: Indefinite reuse of same water after treatment for the same purpose. Makeup water is to be used only to replace unavoidable losses. This is far cheaper than installing new process technology and recent technological development has made sure that it can be used by any type of industry.
Rainwater harvesting: This helps industries meet a substantial part of their annual water requirement even as demand on local sources is minimised.
Technology is not the bottleneck
There are enough technologies to solve all water problems and what is more, the prices of these technologies are gradually decreasing. In a nutshell, it quite feasible today for an Indian industry to substantially reduce its water consumption and wastewater discharge by putting efficient systems for recycling and reusing the process water. But for this to happen government policy needs to be overhauled.
Industry can improve
the technology to do so exists. But does the will?
Water use in Indian industry is very high due to a combination of factors including obsolete process technology, poor recycling and reuse practices and poor wastewater treatment. Water once used is generally thrown without any further use, even if the water is not much contaminated. Segregation of wastewater from various processes into clean wastewater, (that can be reused) and contaminated water is not commonly done. The result is that even the uncontaminated water gets contaminated after mixing and is discharged as effluent.
Indian industry, especially thermal power plants, consume majority of their water for cooling requirements. Majority of industries use 'once-through cooling systems', in which water once used for cooling is discharged. Similarly, reuse of non-contact steam condensate is also not favoured in India, though it is virtually clean and can be reused by reducing the total dissolved solids (TDS).
The wastewater treatment system in Indian industry is essentially installed to meet the wastewater discharge norms. The design principles do not consider the possibility of recycling and reusing the wastewater. Inevitably, in all industries the wastewater discharged is seldom suitable for reuse within the industry, though industry expects other users to reuse its wastewater because it is 'treated'. Most industries have their water intake points upstream of their wastewater discharge points. This itself exemplifies the quality and interest of wastewater treatment by Indian industry.
Water use in Indian industry is very high due to a combination of factors including obsolete process technology, poor recycling and reuse practices and poor wastewater treatment. Water once used is generally thrown without any further use, even if the water is not much contaminated. Segregation of wastewater from various processes into clean wastewater, (that can be reused) and contaminated water is not commonly done. The result is that even the uncontaminated water gets contaminated after mixing and is discharged as effluent.
Indian industry, especially thermal power plants, consume majority of their water for cooling requirements. Majority of industries use 'once-through cooling systems', in which water once used for cooling is discharged. Similarly, reuse of non-contact steam condensate is also not favoured in India, though it is virtually clean and can be reused by reducing the total dissolved solids (TDS).
The wastewater treatment system in Indian industry is essentially installed to meet the wastewater discharge norms. The design principles do not consider the possibility of recycling and reusing the wastewater. Inevitably, in all industries the wastewater discharged is seldom suitable for reuse within the industry, though industry expects other users to reuse its wastewater because it is 'treated'. Most industries have their water intake points upstream of their wastewater discharge points. This itself exemplifies the quality and interest of wastewater treatment by Indian industry.
Too many cooks Spoil the water management broth.
Ministry of water resource (MoWR): It is the principle agency responsible for water in India but water pollution does not fall under its purview, nor does the industrial use of water.
Ministry of Industry (MoI): It is concerned with the planning and development of water resources for industrial use. It has no mandate to control or regulate the water use by industries.
Central Ground Water Board/Authority (CGWB/A): Meant to regulate the groundwater quality and quantity in the country. Though they have mandate to do what they can with groundwater, they have so far only mapped the groundwater status. They have no mandate to charge industrial groundwater use.
Ministry of Power (MoP): Entrusted with development of hydroelectricity, but has no mandate to look after either water consumption or water pollution by the thermal power plants. And this despite the fact that they consume as much as three-fourths of the total industrial water in the country.
Water Quality Assessment Authority (WQAA): Frustrated with the multiplicity of agencies MoEF & MoWR decided to set up this apex body to compile information on water quality and monitor the function of the agencies. But since its constitution, WQAA has only met twice and no progress has been made on its agenda.
Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF): It is concerned with the quality of surface and ground water. But it has no mandate to control use of water as raw material. But it has no mandate to handle water scarcity, nor any power to resolve water conflicts.
Central and State Pollution Control Board (CPCB) & (SPCBs): These regulate industrial water pollution and charge water cess based on the amount of wastewater discharged by the companies. But they have no mandate to control sourcing of water from various sources.
Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD): Its responsibilities are: watershed development, the Million Wells Scheme, the Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission and developing the source of drinking water in rural areas. But ensuring availability of water and testing for water contamination is not its responsibility.
Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD): It is responsible for drinking water in urban areas but doesn't have the mandate to monitor, regulate or charge water used by industries in urban areas.
Just use it
Poor laws and regulations and lack of coordination between regulatory bodies worsen the water crisis
There is no concrete government policy on industrial water use. The existing policies are merely a atchwork of public health and water availability concerns.
Regulating use
GLOBAL: Countries across the world set water consumption standards and targets for industries to achieve, and regularly revise the standards in a bid to control water use. China, for instance, sets water targets for major water consuming industrial sectors. According to the report of China Water Conservation Agency, the first national quotas for industrial water consumption will push companies to save as much as 6 billion cubic meters of water a year by 2005. Similar water saving targets are fixed across the developed world.
INDIA: In India, as of now, there is no law determining the exact amount of water meant for consumption by the various industrial sectors. Though CPCB has prescribed water consumption levels for some industrial sectors, they are mere recommendations and cannot be enforced by laws. India also has some obsolete laws related to groundwater extraction. In Indian law, the person who owns the land also owns the groundwater below. Though this law has some relevance as far as the domestic groundwater use is concerned, it is outright absurd for industrial and commercial use. The result is that today, industries withdraw groundwater that remains unregulated and unpriced.
Regulating pollution
GLOBAL: Regulators are shifting from concentration-based standards to pollution load based standards. The pollution load-based standards determine the total amount of pollutant generated for per unit production. The pollution load-based standards also use the quota system for the amount of water allowed to various industries and therefore, with this standard pollution levels are monitored, as also the amount of freshwater consumed. This forces companies to reduce fresh water consumption as they save on water cost. Also, by introducing 'polluter pays principle' regulators push companies to reduce the total pollution load. Therefore, with the help of pollution load-based standards coupled with the 'polluter pays principle', regulators across the world are reducing fresh water consumption as well as water pollution by industries.
INDIA: In India both these principles are absent. The result is that industries use more freshwater and discharge more pollutants through wastewater and still meet the legal standards. The industrial water pollution standards in the country are concentration based, that is, they measure the concentration of pollution in a given quantity of water. The result is that an industry can meet the required standard merely by diluting the effluent with clean water. Since the cost of water is low, it makes more economic sense for an industry to dilute the effluent than to treat it to meet the standards. l
National Water Policy: Industry is let off!
The issues related to the industrial water have been addressed in vague and fragmented form in National Water Policy (NWP) released in 2002. No clear vision for regulating and controlling industrial water use has been given. The policies stated in NWP, 2002 are just not sufficient to result in modern control and regulation of the industrial water use as an integrated whole.
The entire document of 6000 words mentions industry just 6 times, unmindful of the environmental concerns industrial water use poses.
Water policy says:
Effluents should be treated to levels and standards that are acceptable before discharging them into natural streams.
Comment: Does not address the issue of pollution load. The current standards for industrial effluents are concentration- based, which does not provides incentive for reducing water use or pollution loads.
Principle of 'polluter pays' should be followed in management of polluted water.
Comment: Advocates 'polluter pays' principle' but is silent on extent of payment. Current water cess charged by pollution control boards is a 'polluter pays' regime, but the quantum of payment is so low that there is no incentive or disincentive for the industry for reducing wastewater discharge and hence water use.
Economic development and activities, including agriculture, industry and urban development, should be planned with due regard to the constraints imposed by the configuration of water availability. There should be a water zoning of the country and the economic activities should be guided and regulated in accordance with such zoning.
Comment: Unless addressed in the industrial policy, it has no significance.
Efficiency of utilisation in all the diverse uses of water should be optimised and an awareness of water as a scarce resource should be fostered. Conservation consciousness should be promoted through education, regulation, incentives and disincentives.
Comment: Vague and indifferent.
The resources should be conserved and the availability augmented by maximising retention, eliminating pollution and minimising losses. For this, measures such as selective linings in the conveyance system, modernisation and rehabilitation of existing systems including tanks, recycling and re-use of treated effluents and adoption of traditional techniques like mulching or pitcher irrigation and new techniques like drip and sprinkler may be promoted, wherever feasible.
Comment: Vague and indifferent.
people and industry both suffer!!!1
SIV Industries
One of the few integrated viscose rayon manufacturers in India, SIV Industries was established in 1964. It is situated upstream river Bhavani in Sirumugai village of Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu. The mill used river water and discharged its treated effluent back into river Bhavani.
Villagers living downstream used the water for drinking, irrigation and other household activities. They lodged complaints such as discoloration of water, skin allergies and a decline in crop productivity due to the usage of contaminated water.
The Bhavani river agitation was marked with protests by the local community mobilised by NGOs - Bhavani River Protection Joint Council and Lower Bhavani Projects Ryots Association.
Following the wide-scale protests by the local community as well as the directives of the Pollution Control Board and the High Court, the mill invested substantially to upgrade its pollution control equipment. It imported technology from a foreign agency (Linde, Germany) specifically for effluent treatment. The mill also started discharging its wastewater into its own land for the irrigation of crops.
But this entire episode took its toll and the industry is currently not operational.
Sinar Mas Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd.
Sinar Mas Pulp & Paper (India) Ltd. (SMPPIL) was set up in 1997 on the Pune-Solapur highway near Pune, Maharashtra. The mill met its entire requirement from Ujjani dam. Since the imported pulp is dry, SMPPIL consumed a large quantity of water during its papermaking process and the treated effluent was discharged through a 12 km long pipeline into river Nira.
The local communities in and around the region were against the mill for various reasons. To begin with, the water from Ujjani dam was originally meant for irrigation of drought-prone areas. Secondly, there was the fear that usage of water by Sinar Mas would lead to water shortage for sugarcane growers in Solapur and Indrapur, which in turn would affect the sugar co-operative factories.
To make matters worse, the local community was also upset at the preferential treatment given to the industry by the government, namely, cheaper rates for tankers (it was alleged that the government was charging only Rs 3 per 10,000 litre tanker from the company whereas farmers and villagers had to pay about Rs 100 per tanker). The industry was also assured that they would be provided water from the dam for eight months. But villagers received no such assurance.
As a spillover of this conflict more than 20 cases were filed against the company in various courts. The company thereafter reduced its water consumption significantly and today it is one of the lowest water-consuming paper mills in the country. It took almost five years for the company to regain confidence of the local community.
Currently the mill is functioning under the name of Ballarpur Graphics Paperboards Ltd.
Grasim Industries (GIL) - Mavoor Unit
The Mavoor unit of Grasim Industries is situated on the banks of river Chaliyar in Kozhikode district of Kerala. The unit produced rayon grade pulp. The unit used to discharge its treated effluent into river Chaliyar. Over 200,000 people live on the banks of the Chaliyar and the discharge of effluents by the mill was one of the main reasons of conflict between the local
community and the mill.
Complaints of pollution of river, fish deaths and lack of adequate treatment facility at the unit began pouring in. There were also several health related complaints, such as high incidence of cancer in the region.
The mill failed to lay down a pipeline to Chungapally (seven km downstream) to discharge its effluents directly into the estuary area, as per its agreement with the state government in 1974. Several complaints were also lodged against the mill with the local pollution control board, and at various forums. Finally, due to prolonged public agitation in the area, on May 5, 1997, the government of Kerala formed a committee to study in detail the pollution problems caused by the industry and recommend solutions.
The committee made 28 recommendations after conducting a detailed study and interacting with the local community. The government accepted them and Kerala State Pollution Control Board gave time-bound directions to the mill in July 1998 to implement the recommendations within one year.
Instead, the mill decided it was time to close down.
One of the few integrated viscose rayon manufacturers in India, SIV Industries was established in 1964. It is situated upstream river Bhavani in Sirumugai village of Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu. The mill used river water and discharged its treated effluent back into river Bhavani.
Villagers living downstream used the water for drinking, irrigation and other household activities. They lodged complaints such as discoloration of water, skin allergies and a decline in crop productivity due to the usage of contaminated water.
The Bhavani river agitation was marked with protests by the local community mobilised by NGOs - Bhavani River Protection Joint Council and Lower Bhavani Projects Ryots Association.
Following the wide-scale protests by the local community as well as the directives of the Pollution Control Board and the High Court, the mill invested substantially to upgrade its pollution control equipment. It imported technology from a foreign agency (Linde, Germany) specifically for effluent treatment. The mill also started discharging its wastewater into its own land for the irrigation of crops.
But this entire episode took its toll and the industry is currently not operational.
Sinar Mas Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd.
Sinar Mas Pulp & Paper (India) Ltd. (SMPPIL) was set up in 1997 on the Pune-Solapur highway near Pune, Maharashtra. The mill met its entire requirement from Ujjani dam. Since the imported pulp is dry, SMPPIL consumed a large quantity of water during its papermaking process and the treated effluent was discharged through a 12 km long pipeline into river Nira.
The local communities in and around the region were against the mill for various reasons. To begin with, the water from Ujjani dam was originally meant for irrigation of drought-prone areas. Secondly, there was the fear that usage of water by Sinar Mas would lead to water shortage for sugarcane growers in Solapur and Indrapur, which in turn would affect the sugar co-operative factories.
To make matters worse, the local community was also upset at the preferential treatment given to the industry by the government, namely, cheaper rates for tankers (it was alleged that the government was charging only Rs 3 per 10,000 litre tanker from the company whereas farmers and villagers had to pay about Rs 100 per tanker). The industry was also assured that they would be provided water from the dam for eight months. But villagers received no such assurance.
As a spillover of this conflict more than 20 cases were filed against the company in various courts. The company thereafter reduced its water consumption significantly and today it is one of the lowest water-consuming paper mills in the country. It took almost five years for the company to regain confidence of the local community.
Currently the mill is functioning under the name of Ballarpur Graphics Paperboards Ltd.
Grasim Industries (GIL) - Mavoor Unit
The Mavoor unit of Grasim Industries is situated on the banks of river Chaliyar in Kozhikode district of Kerala. The unit produced rayon grade pulp. The unit used to discharge its treated effluent into river Chaliyar. Over 200,000 people live on the banks of the Chaliyar and the discharge of effluents by the mill was one of the main reasons of conflict between the local
community and the mill.
Complaints of pollution of river, fish deaths and lack of adequate treatment facility at the unit began pouring in. There were also several health related complaints, such as high incidence of cancer in the region.
The mill failed to lay down a pipeline to Chungapally (seven km downstream) to discharge its effluents directly into the estuary area, as per its agreement with the state government in 1974. Several complaints were also lodged against the mill with the local pollution control board, and at various forums. Finally, due to prolonged public agitation in the area, on May 5, 1997, the government of Kerala formed a committee to study in detail the pollution problems caused by the industry and recommend solutions.
The committee made 28 recommendations after conducting a detailed study and interacting with the local community. The government accepted them and Kerala State Pollution Control Board gave time-bound directions to the mill in July 1998 to implement the recommendations within one year.
Instead, the mill decided it was time to close down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
