1 / 63

The Study Team

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF ALCOHOL INDUSTRY IN UTTAR PRADESH DR. YASHPAL SINGH CHIEF ENVIRONMENT OFFICER U.P. Pollution Control Board Lucknow,India. The Study Team. A. Coordination: 1. Dr. C.S.Bhatt, Member Secretary, UPPCB

lcarpenter
Download Presentation

The Study Team

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF ALCOHOL INDUSTRY IN UTTAR PRADESHDR. YASHPAL SINGHCHIEF ENVIRONMENT OFFICERU.P. Pollution Control BoardLucknow,India

  2. The Study Team A. Coordination: 1. Dr. C.S.Bhatt, Member Secretary, UPPCB 2. Dr. Yashpal Singh, Chief Environment Officer, UPPCB 3. Er. Pradeep Sharma, Asstt. Environment Engr., UPPCB. B. Study Executed by: ENV Developmental Assistance Systems (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow. Experts: 1. Er. T.N.Chaturvedi, Professional & Chartered Engineer 2. Er. R.K.Bajaj, Environmental Engineer C. Data Analysis & DTP 1. Mr. T.Wilson, Data Analyst & DTP, DAS India. 2. Mr. R.K.Bajpai, Data Entry Operator, UPPCB . Contd...

  3. The Study Team (… contd.) • Our gratitude to: • Sri Pradeep Kumar • The then Principal Secretary Environment and • Chairman UP Pollution Control Board • For conceiving and designing the study and for his inspiring leadership and guidance. • Excise Department • Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. • For providing valuable data • Senior Officers of the U.P. Pollution Control Board • For their valuable inputs.

  4. EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION • FIRST WAVE – THE TRADITIONAL REGULATORY APPROACH • SECOND WAVE – MARKET BASED INSTRUMENTS • - POLLUTION CHARGES • - PRODUCT CHARGES • - USER FEE • - PERFORMANCE BONDS • - LIABILITY PAYMENTS • - NON COMPLIANCE FEES • - DEPOSIT REFUND SCHEME • - TRADEABLE PERMITS • THIRD WAVE – PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

  5. BENEFITS OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE • CREATION OF MARKET OPPORTUNITIES • IMPROVEMENTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE • INCREASED CONFIDENCE OF INVESTORS, INSURERS AND • FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS • IMPROVED RELATIONSHIP WITH LOCAL COMMUNITIES, • REGULATORS AND NON GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIIONS • GREATER CONTROL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE • INCREASED STAFF COMMITTMENT

  6. PRACTICED AS • Involuntary – Media Exposures, Notices, PIL Etc. • Mandatory – The Regulatory Mechanism like consents • Voluntary – Press Release, Public Reports Etc. • DRIVERS • Transparency • - Society Wants To Be Told What Is Going On • Accountability • - Fear Of Losing Significant Economic Value Of • Good Corporate Reputation • Synergy Between Economic And Environmental • Performance

  7. ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION • THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ) • ACT, 1974 AS AMENDED IN 1988. • THE WATER ( PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) • CESS ACT, 1977 AS AMENDED IN 1991. • THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, • 1981 AS AMENDED IN 1987. • THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986 • THE PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE ACT, 1991 • THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRIBUNAL ACT, 1995 • THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACT, • 1997 • NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY ACT, 2002

  8. INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM • -CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD • - STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDS • INCENTIVES / DISINCENTIVES • - FINES • - BANK GUARANTEES • - CESS REBATE • - CONSENT VALIDITY • - LOCATION • - CLOSURES • - PROSECUTION

  9. Environmental Performance Rating A Pioneering Initiative • U.P. Pollution Control Board, in a pioneering initiative is making efforts to change the paradigm of the way Pollution Control is commonly understood. • Dispel the notion that, Pollution Control is an end of process, cost-intensive, loss-making effort. • Rather, environmental management and pollution control means harmonizing resources, process and outputs.

  10. Objectives of this Study • To place a Mirror before the industry in the form of Environmental Performance Rating to make them aware about their strengths and weaknesses as also the opportunities & threats, so as to enable self-correction and continual improvement in their environmental performance. • To encourage pro-active role by the Industry to improve its Environmental Performance through benchmarking.

  11. Significance of Alcohol Industry • Downstream unit of Sugar Industry- Synergy with Sugar & Paper • Utilising wastes (Molasses) to produce Alcohol, an essential input of the Chemical & Pharmaceutical Industry and a product for human consumption. • Alcohol – great potential for use as Fuel for automobiles – GASOHOL. • But, also known for discharging highly polluted effluents and is included in ‘Schedule-1’ of Water Cess Act. An EIA is a pre-requisite before setting up of any unit or expansion thereof.(Contd…….)

  12. Significance of Alcohol Industry(…. Contd.) • Significance in U.P. • Alongwith sugar, the largest value enhancer to agricultural produce. • Contributes a significant part of State GDP – next only to Trade Tax. • Major catalyst of Employment in the Primary & Secondary Sectors. • Unfortunately, also amongst the most polluting industries. • Over 10 MT of BOD load per day into the river systems of the State.

  13. Alcohol Industry in Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal – a profile • No. of Distilleries in U.P. & Uttaranchal - 43 • No. of Operational Distilleries - 37 • No. of Molasses Based Distilleries - 35 • No. of Grain Based Distilleries - 02 • Units not operated in 2000-01 - 02 • Total Annual Production Capacity of the Operational Distilleries - 6,79,777 KL • Alcohol Production during 2000-01 - 4,32,489 KL

  14. Analytical Framework and Methodology • The basic hypothesis for this environmental performance rating exercise has been: • Optimal resource utilisation and improved production processes are likely to result in better environmental performance. • Minimal but conscious efforts can result in achieving the environmental norms. • Therefore, the framework of the rating has three axes: • Plant performance • Regulatory compliance & • Environmental initiatives (Contd…...)

  15. Analytical Framework and Methodology ( …. Contd.) • The study is based on data obtained from – • The industry • Excise Department • U.P. Pollution Control Board • The study is diachronic & covers a span of three (3) years: • 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2000-01 and includes trend of Performance (Contd…...)

  16. Analytical Framework and Methodology(…….Contd.) • Evaluation parameters identified. • Basic data obtained from Industry on a customized questionnaire. • The Data received analyzed and clarifications obtained from the units, as required. • Consultants’ team visited Eight (8) Distillery units, selected on geographical location and size, to verify credibility of the reported data on a sample basis. • Feedback taken from Senior Technical officers of UPPCB, during a series of presentations. • Authentication of the data, considered for calculating the environmental parameters, obtained from the top management of the distillery units. (Contd…...)

  17. Analytical Framework and Methodology(…….Contd.) • Environmental parameters calculated for various units from the authenticated data obtained. • Latest (2000-01) performance & Trend analyzed. • The two grain based units separately analyzed. • Two (2) molasses-based units- one started in 2000-01 and the other not worked during the year 2000-01, excluded. • Draft Report prepared and presented to the industry in an “Open-house (05.02.02)” for feedback, after which the final report with ratings, prepared. • Individual units informed about their environmental performance scores as well as the potential for cost savings through improvement - “Action Plans requested”

  18. The Environmental Performance Criteria & Weightages • Plant Level Performance (40%) • % utilization of installed production capacity (2+1) • Raw Material, MT per KL Alcohol(5+1) • Alcohol Recovery, Ltrs. Per MT TRS (3+1) • Water Consumption, KL per KL Alcohol(10+1) • Total Energy, GJ per KL Alcohol(4+1) • % Renewable out of the Total Energy(4+1) • Net External Energy, GJ per KL Alcohol(5+1) (Contd…..)

  19. The Environmental Performance Criteria & Weightages (……Contd.) • Regulatory Compliance Status (5%) • ‘Consent’ – Water (2000) obtained from UPPCB(5 for yes, 0 for no) • ‘Marginal’/’Heavy’ Default (without dilution) - UPPCB’ internal norms - Negative Marking (Heavy –5; marginal –2) (Contd…..)

  20. The Environmental Performance Criteria & Weightages (……Contd.) • Corporate & Environmental Management Aspects (55%) • ISO 14001 E M S (10 for yes; 0 for no) • Completeness of ETP(10) • Effluent Disposal Practice - Stream/Land or Conversion into Bio-compost (10) • Spent Wash generated, KL per KL Alcohol(10) • Biogas generation, Nm3 per KL Spent Wash(15) • Dilution Factor (-10)

  21. Environmental Performance Evaluation Plant Level Performance Capacity Utilisation No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 19 • Minimum - 2.90% • Maximum - 105.15% • Average - 64.56% • Mode - 73.50

  22. Plant Level Performance Capacity Utilisation – The Top & Bottom Five Units

  23. Plant Level Performance Molasses Consumption, MT/KL Alcohol • Minimum - 4.53 • Maximum - 6.28 • Average - 4.97 • Mode - 4.97 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 14

  24. Plant Level Performance Molasses Consumption - The Top & Bottom Five Units

  25. Plant Level Performance Recovery of Alcohol in Ltrs./MT. TRS No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 13 • Minimum - 379.40 • Maximum - 536.78 • Average - 463.73 • Mode - 467.93

  26. Plant Level Performance Recovery of Alcohol - The Top & Bottom Five Units

  27. Plant Level Performance Water Consumption, KL / KL Alcohol • Minimum - 14.69 • Maximum - 512.88 • Average - 125.22 • Mode - 94.75 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 20

  28. Plant Level Performance Water Consumption- The Top & Bottom Five Units

  29. Plant Level Performance Total Energy Consumption in GJ/KL Alcohol • Minimum - 10.17 • Maximum - 123.56 • Average - 26.04 • Mode - 18.32 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 18

  30. Plant Level Performance Total Energy Consumption - The Top & Bottom Five Units

  31. Plant Level Performance Total Renewable Energy % of Total Energy • Minimum - 7.92 • Maximum - 100.00 • Average - 79.51 • Mode - 93.42 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 17

  32. Plant Level Performance Total Renewable Energy- The Top & Bottom Five Units

  33. Plant Level Performance Net External Energy in GJ / KL Alcohol • Minimum - 0.00 • Maximum - 123.56 • Average - 17.70 • Mode - 9.44 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 21

  34. Plant Level Performance Net External Energy - The Top & Bottom Five Units

  35. Regulatory Compliance • Consent Water Molasses Grain • Based Based • Consent Granted - 17 02 • Consent Not Granted - 16 -

  36. Regulatory Compliance • Default Status(without dilution) • Heavy Default - 22 • Marginal Default - 11 • Zero Discharge - 02

  37. Environmental Management • ISO 14001/EMS not granted to any Unit • Completeness of ETP • In 2 Units, Primary (Biogas generation) stage not functional. In other 3 units, biogas not monitored & not consumed. • 16 Units donot have the Second Aerobic Stage of the Secondary Treatment • 2 Units are converting the entire effluent into Bio-manure • 8 Units have started partly converting the effluent into Bio-manure

  38. Environmental Management Spent Wash Generation in KL/KL Alcohol • Minimum - 10.87 • Maximum - 38.34 • Average - 15.48 • Mode - 14.92 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 16

  39. Environmental Management Spent Wash Generation - The Top & Bottom Five Units

  40. Environmental Management Biogas Generation in Nm3 /KL Spent Wash • Minimum - 7.26 • Maximum - 54.30 • Average - 32.31 • Mode - 32.38 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 16

  41. Environmental Management Biogas Generation - The Top & Bottom Five Units

  42. Environmental Management Dilution Ratio – KL Water/KL Treated Effluent • Minimum - 0.31 • Maximum - 44.81 • Average - 7.88 • Mode - 5.50 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 18

  43. Environmental Management Dilution Ratio – The Top & Bottom Five Units

  44. Overall Environmental Performance (Molasses Based Units) • Minimum - -1.82 • Maximum - 54.15 • Average - 25.27 • Mode - 26.17 No. of Units with negative performance compared to modal value – 18

  45. Conclusion 1. Regional Comparison of Environmental Performance RegionNo. of UnitsPerformance Avg. Eastern 06 23.55 Central 07 25.61 Western 17 26.47 Uttaranchal 03 21.14

  46. 2. River Catchment-wise – No. of Distilleries River Catchment Units Discharging Land disposal/ to River Bio-Composting Ghagra 06 05 01 Gomti 03 01 02 Ganga 20 18 02 Yamuna 06 06 - (Including 2 Grain Based distilleries)

  47. 3. Locational Comparison of Environmental Performance LocationNo. of UnitsPerformance Avg. Rural 23 24.90 Semi Urban 02 29.97 Urban 08 25.18

  48. 5. Environmental Performance vs Gross Profit Gross Profit is directly proportional to Environmental Performance. (Available data for 14 units) Better the Environmental Performance, higher is the Profitability.

  49. 6. Better Environmental Performance of Grain Based Distilleries • The environmental performance of Grain Based is better in comparison to molasses based distilleries • Even Though their energy requirements are much higher. • Notably, there is no recognition for IMFL as Whisky by WTO.

  50. Savings’ Potential in the overall industry through improved environmental performance • Potential for annual cost savings on achieving industry-bestperformance value: • Molasses Consumption : Rs. 26.95 Crores • Water Consumption : Rs. 12.04 Crores • Biogas Utilization : Rs. 22.50 Crores • Reduction in Total • Energy Consumption : Rs. 45.32 Crores

More Related