Most Pollution Control Boards in India are now insisting that industries meet the directive on Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). So is the judiciary.
The idea of ZLD is to not let polluting liquids be discharged into the environment.
ZLD is directed to industries in locations where there is no receiving water body for evacuating the effluents or the receiving water bodies are already severely polluted. We ask for ZLD here as we don’t want to burden these water bodies anymore!
ZLD implies that effluents are ‘contained’ within the plant itself and intake of freshwater for production is minimal or near zero. Hence ZLD is often imposed on industries at locations where there is poor water availability or the neighborhood is a water-stressed area. In most cases, ZLD leads to 90- 92% water recovery, which reduces input water required by industrial processes by as much as 80%.
Sometimes, ZLD is directed as a part of River Action Plans. For example, under the Clean Ganga Action Plan, industries located in the critical stretches of the river have been asked to be ZLD compliant. All effluents must be recycled to 100%. But is this the right solution? We need to ask.
Normally one would expect that for a ZLD compliant industry, no liquid discharge will emanate from its premises. So if you walked around the compound wall of the industry or
viewed the industry on Google Earth then you should not ideally see any drain flowing out except the storm water drainage which cannot be intercepted. Essentially, the sewage and effluent generated at the industrial plot cannot be released if the industry wants to be ZLD
compliant. Can this be achieved by deep and secured injection of effluents underground? Some industries do that. Should this be permitted?
Unfortunately, there is no operational definition of what is meant by ZLD. If you know one, I will be keen to know.
I have been asking some of the industries in Gujarat about their experience with implementing ZLD systems. Most of them say that ZLD systems were very expensive to invest in and operate. Accordingly to Sustainability Outlook, a ZLD plant operating at 5 Million Liters per day will incur between INR 500-600 million (USD 4-5mn) in CAPEX and spend INR 15,000-25,000 (USD 250- 400) as OPEX per day. Thus, the treated and recycled water costs will work out to approximately INR 200/kl, while the cost of water extractionfrom the ground or from the municipality would be between INR 30-60 per kiloliter. Consequently you will often see compromises being made in the material specs of the ZLD units to save capital costs. This results in problems of early corrosion, lower life of membranes etc. leading to poor performance, non-compliance and high operating costs. For ZLD, short cuts on cutting costs don’t seem to work.
The technologies commonly used in ZLD systems such as Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Multiple Effect Evaporators (MEE) are the main energy guzzlers. If we accounted for the consumption of fossil fuels and air emissions arising from pumping, heating and combustion, then on a 3600 evaluation, the ZLD solutions may not be environmentally sound and in fact could lead to high carbon footprints. Further, we cannot forget the challenge of the management of residues (salt and sludges) – costs of residue management (destruction/transport) for a ZLD plant are exorbitantly high!
In this case, it will be interesting to carry out material and energy balance calculations for the ZLD plants. Such evaluations, I am sure must, have been done by industries internally but there is a need for these assessments to be conducted in the style of environmental accounting following a life cycle framework.
These independent assessments should ideally be sponsored by the Pollution Control Boards with outcomes discussed with industries in workshops. Indeed, there is a need to
demystify the ‘good and ugly’ part of the ZLD solutions (You may want to read article by Rajakumari, S.P. / Kanmani, S. titled Environmental life cycle assessment of zero liquid discharge treatment technologies for textile industries, Tirupur – A case study in Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research; 67, 6; 461-467)
Whether ZLD is applicable and relevant for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) is a question. While on individual basis, ZLD for an SME may be almost impossible to achieve, but on a collective basis, SMEs could achieve ZLD. ZLD at the Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) of Tirupur in Tamil Nadu is an example where effluents are recycled from the CETP back to the member SMEs.
To develop an economical ZLD solution, key strategies are– segregation, chemical/material substitution, process optimization/change for reduction in effluent loads, followed by selective reuse, recycling and recovery operations. It’s the ‘systems approach’ that is needed. If implemented in the right spirit and rigor, an imposition of ZLD could trigger cleaner production opportunities for the industry resulting into profitability and proactive compliance. In all of the above, the choice of technology (in process in particular) and economics (especially on chemical and water recovery) plays an important role.
Innovations are possible through ZLD. But then these possibilities are not commonly observed and reported across industries for the purpose of guidance and inspiration. ZLD is often limited as an add-on or a ‘tertiary’ treatment unit. This perception must change as ‘end of pipe’ driven ZLD systems are often seen as economically unviable over the long run. Unfortunately, most ZLD solution providers focus on the end of pipe approach and so does the industry. Process optimization and process changes followed by recovery & recycling should be the focus of ZLD systems.
Many a times, we see that the economics of ZLD is not favorable because of the use of certain ‘dirty’ processes and chemicals (salts) and because of the ‘scale’ on which the industry operates. If ZLD is imposed on such industries then the industries would rather shut down instead of attempting implementation of ZLD. When backed by the judiciary, such closures do happen. Some argue that in this process, we achieve the goal of ‘ecological modernization’ to benefit the environment over the long term with the negative of loss of jobs to the workers! So there is something to gain (positive) and something to lose (negative)
Should a central financing scheme be put in place for implementation of ZLD plants is therefore a question to ponder over. And should such a scheme have components of grants and subsidized loans, especially for SMEs? But will this not go against the ‘polluter pays’ principle?
We badly need a national workshop on ZLD to get all key stakeholders involved. We do see conferences where the focus is ZLD technologies but the policy, economics and the total cost (environmental) accounting perspective are rarely discussed. We need to know whether in achieving the ‘zero’ in the ZLD, we are creating something negative or positive for the industry, environment and the society.
Cover image sourced from http://dmmd.net/main_wp/intuitive-mathematics/testing-blog-post/
For an insightful reading on ZLD visit