1. ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF ALCOHOL INDUSTRY IN UTTAR PRADESH DR. YASHPAL SINGH CHIEF ENVIRONMENT OFFICER U.P. Pollution Control Board Lucknow,India

2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8 INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISM - CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDS INCENTIVES / DISINCENTIVES - FINES - BANK GUARANTEES - CESS REBATE - CONSENT VALIDITY - LOCATION - CLOSURES - PROSECUTION

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

10. 10 Objectives of this Study l 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. l To encourage pro-active role by the Industry to improve its Environmental Performance through benchmarking.

11. 11 Significance of Alcohol Industry l Downstream unit of Sugar Industry- Synergy with Sugar & Paper l Utilising wastes (Molasses) to produce Alcohol, an essential input of the Chemical & Pharmaceutical Industry and a product for human consumption. l Alcohol – great potential for use as Fuel for automobiles – GASOHOL. l 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. 12 Significance of Alcohol Industry (…. Contd.) l Significance in U.P. w Alongwith sugar, the largest value enhancer to agricultural produce. w Contributes a significant part of State GDP – next only to Trade Tax. w Major catalyst of Employment in the Primary & Secondary Sectors. w Unfortunately, also amongst the most polluting industries. u Over 10 MT of BOD load per day into the river systems of the State.

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

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

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

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

17. 17 Analytical Framework and Methodology (…….Contd.) l Environmental parameters calculated for various units from the authenticated data obtained. l Latest (2000-01) performance & Trend analyzed. w The two grain based units separately analyzed. w Two (2) molasses-based units- one started in 2000-01 and the other not worked during the year 2000-01, excluded. l 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. l Individual units informed about their environmental performance scores as well as the potential for cost savings through improvement - Action Plans requested

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

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

20. 20 The Environmental Performance Criteria & Weightages (……Contd.) l Corporate & Environmental Management Aspects (55%) w ISO 14001 E M S (10 for yes; 0 for no) w Completeness of ETP(10) w Effluent Disposal Practice - Stream/Land or Conversion into Bio-compost (10) w Spent Wash generated, KL per KL Alcohol(10) w Biogas generation, Nm 3 per KL Spent Wash(15) w Dilution Factor (-10)

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

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

23. 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. 24 Plant Level Performance Molasses Consumption - The Top & Bottom Five Units

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

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

27. 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. 28 Plant Level Performance Water Consumption- The Top & Bottom Five Units

29. 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. 30 Plant Level Performance Total Energy Consumption - The Top & Bottom Five Units

31. 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. 32 Plant Level Performance Total Renewable Energy- The Top & Bottom Five Units

33. 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. 34 Plant Level Performance Net External Energy - The Top & Bottom Five Units

35. 35 Regulatory Compliance Consent WaterMolasses Grain Based Consent Granted - 17 02 Consent Not Granted- 16 -

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

37. 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 do not 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. 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. 39 Environmental Management Spent Wash Generation - The Top & Bottom Five Units

40. 40 Environmental Management Biogas Generation in Nm 3 /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. 41 Environmental Management Biogas Generation - The Top & Bottom Five Units

42. 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. 43 Environmental Management Dilution Ratio – The Top & Bottom Five Units

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

45. 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. 46 2. River Catchment-wise – No. of Distilleries River CatchmentUnitsDischarging Land disposal/ to RiverBio-Composting Ghagra 06 05 01 Gomti 03 01 02 Ganga 20 18 02 Yamuna 06 06 - (Including 2 Grain Based distilleries)

47. 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. 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. 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. 50 Savings Potential in the overall industry through improved environmental performance Potential for annual cost savings on achieving industry-best performance 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

51. 51 Recommendations 1.Serious thinking required in respect of the bottom five (5) units having alarmingly poor environmental performance with the consequent adverse environmental impacts. 2.Mandatory installation of Primary (Biogas) stage of effluent treatment in all the molasses-based plants to generate & utilize biogas as also its close monitoring and control. Retrofitting or replacement of inefficient plants to be carried out to achieve best performance. 3.Ensuring two stage aerobic treatment in Secondary stage of the Effluent Treatment Plant in all molasses-based units discharging into stream or land. (Contd ……)

52. 52 Recommendations 4. Minimizing water consumption by maximum recycling and reuse. 5.Installation of metering systems at identified locations for monitoring the consumption of Biogas, Water, Electricity & fuel. 6.Conversion of Spent Wash into bio-manure or cattle feed to be preferred disposal practice. 7.Energy Conservation training programs and periodic energy audits to identify and eliminate energy wastage and reduce energy consumption. (Contd ……)

53. 53 Recommendation (…….Contd.) 8.Maximum utilization of the treated effluent for irrigation, where bio-composting is not feasible. 9.Adoption of the best available technologies in the following areas, Fermentation Distillation Co-generation of steam/power Effluent Treatment 10. Upgradation of the Management through the implementation of : ISO 14001 Environmental Management System ISO 9001 Quality Management System

54. 54 Overall Environmental Performance Rating ( Molasses Based Units) Contd …..

55. 55 Overall Environmental Performance Rating ( Molasses Based Units) Contd ….. …… Contd.

56. 56 Overall Environmental Performance Rating ( Molasses Based Units) …… Contd.

57. 57 PILOT PROGRAMME FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE RATING AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE FOR INDUSTRIES PART OF WORLD BANK PROGRAMME SIMILAR IN DESIGN PRINCIPLES TO STUDIES IN INDONESIA, CHINA AND PHILIPINES COLLECTIVE EFFORT OF CII, WORLD BANK AND THE U.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

58. 58 INITIATED IN MAY 2001 COVERED 33 INDUSTRIES OF DIFFERENT SIZES AND DIFFERENT SECTORS AT GHAZIABAD AND NOIDA CLASSIFIED BLACK, RED (IMPLYING LACK OF COMPLIANCE) AND BLUE GREEN AND GOLD (LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE MEETING EXISTING STANDARDS) 6 RATED GOLD AND GREEN 16 RATED BLUE 11 RATED BLACK AND RED

59. 59 PILOT INCLUDES LOCATION SPECIFIC PROGRAMME INCLUDES SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE ALSO INVOLVES A YES / NO COMPLIANCE RATING AS AGAINST PERFORMANCE RATING

60. 60 FUTURE OUTLOOK DATA ACQUISITION SUCCESSFUL ONLY IF ASSISTED BY REGULATORY AUTHORITIES. SEPARATE IDENTITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RATING PROGRAM INVOLVEMENT OF A MULTI STAKEHOLDER PANEL FOR RATING VERIFICATION AND OVERSEEING THE RATING PROCESS IS MUST INVOLVEMENT OF TECHNICAL EXPERTS INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL BACKING FOR THE PROJECT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE DATA GENERATED BY THE RATING PROCESS COMPLETE COOPERATION OF SPCB IS MUST.

61. 61 CHARTER FOR CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY 2003 BANK GUARANTEE AND ACTION PLAN TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OR COMBINATION OF FOLLOWING MEASURES COMPOST MAKING WITH PRESS MUD/AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE/MUNICIPAL WASTE CONCENTRATION AND DRYING / INCINERATION BIOMETHANATION, TWO STAGE SECONDARY TREATMENT AND DILUTION WITH PROCESS WATER FOR USE OF EFFLUENTS IN IRRIGATION BIOMETHANATION, SECONDARY TREATMENT AND CONTROLLED DISCHARGE INTO SEA. ONE TIME CONTROLLED APPLICATION ON LAND. STUDY IN THREE MONTHS.

62. 62 ROAD MAP FOR ACHIEVING ZERO DISCHARGE IN INLAND SURFACE WATERS 50 % UTILIZATION OF SPENT WASH BY MARCH 2004 75% UTILIZATION OF SPENT WASH BY MARCH 2005 100 % UTILIZATION OF SPENT WASH BY DECEMBER 2005 NEW DISTILLERIES AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING DISTILLERIES NEW STAND ALONE DISTILLERIES AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING DISTILLERIES WITHOUT ACHIEVING ZERO DISCHARGE IN SURFACE/GROUND WATER NOT TO BE CONSIDERED

63. 63 THANK YOU