Pollutants and Water Management. Группа авторов
COD, TSS, TDS, nitrates, chlorides, fluoride, etc.) are altered by the addition or withdrawal of other compounds beyond their normal variations. The contact of a bore well or any other groundwater source with industrial effluent discharge can alter the quality of water. The effects of groundwater contamination by industry are outlined as follows (Gagan et al. 2016; Mali et al. 2015):
Contaminated water with heavy metals or any other toxic chemical may cause health effects to consumers, such as arsenic poisoning, mercury poisoning, lead toxicity causes cancer, respiratory damages, liver damages, and kidney failure.
Contaminated water also reduces crop yield and quality due to toxic chemicals, as various industries discharge partially treated or untreated effluent into agricultural fields which degrades soil quality.
Consumption of these contaminated foods creates human health issues and food insecurity.
Tannery effluents with improper treatment add chromium into the groundwater and surface water. This causes various diseases and environmental degradation.
Sugar mill effluents have a higher number of suspended solids, dissolved solids, BOD, COD, chloride sulfate, nitrates, calcium, and magnesium. The continuous use of these effluents harms crops when used for irrigation. As a result, a higher number of various elements are deposited in the soil, causing pollution.
Dumping of industrial discharge on any site causes leaching of heavy metals and toxic chemicals. This infiltrates through the soil profile into groundwater and hence contaminates groundwater quality.
3.7 Environmental Infrastructure in Grossly Polluting Industries and its Performance
Industrial pollution management in many developing countries is complicated by the fact that a large number of small‐scale units lack the capacity to mitigate emissions and follow regulations properly (Bansal 2018). Not only are these units restricted by their size, they often have inadequate technological expertise, face financial bottlenecks, and have limited managerial capacities. These features mean that effluent treatment is not feasible by individual units (Kathuria 2001). In addition, the costs associated with individual care will be prohibitive, thus making it impractical. Effluent treatment plants (ETPs) and common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) have been advocated as a cost‐effective alternative for meeting the requirements for small‐scale polluting units in industrial estates/sectors (Bansal 2018). A list of operational CETPs, with an online continuous effluent monitoring system (OCEMS) and zero liquid discharge (ZLD) units in India are listed in Table 3.3.
The first big move toward regulating industrial discharges was implemented in India in 1993–1994 with a priority action plan to classify polluting industries along rivers; they were ordered to install ETPs within three months or face closure (Rajaram and Das 2008). The outcome of this program was believed to be a considerable success.
Different bodies with different functions were also created at a central and state level related to groundwater for the conservation and management of water (Garg 2012). These included:
MoWR
River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
Central Water Commission (CWC)
Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA)
CGWB
Ministry of Industry (MoI)
Table 3.3 Lists of operational effluent treatment plants, with an online continuous effluent monitoring system and zero liquid discharge units in some states.
Source: https://cpcbenvis.nic.in/cpcb_newsletters/PollutingIndustries.pdf.
| S. no. | State | Operational CETPs | OCEMS connectivity with CPCB | No. of CETPs with ZLD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) | Andhra Pradesh | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2) | Delhi | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| 3) | Gujarat | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4) | Haryana | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5) | Himachal Pradesh | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 6) | Jammu and Kashmir | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7) | Jharkhand | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8) | Karnataka | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 9) | Kerala | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 10) | Madhya Pradesh | 13 | 4 | 9 |
| 11) | Maharashtra | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 12) | Punjab | 33 | 16 | 17 |
| 13) | Rajasthan | 19 | 15 | 4 |
| 14) | Tamil Nadu | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 15) | Telangana | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 16) | Tripura | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 17) | Uttar Pradesh | 10 | 9 | 1 |
| 18) |
Uttarakhand
|