Ganga Action Plan
WQ1
WQ2
WQ3
Factor X
WQ3
The Ganga Action Plan 20 years later:
Varanasi and Kanpur
|
|
When he launched the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) in Varnasi in June 1986, Rajiv Gandhi argued that while the sacred purity of the river could never be in question, its material nature could be compromised to a point where worshippers could get ill and even die from pollution. Pollution is caused by humans, whether from sewage or toxic wastes from factories, so humans can clean it up. Twenty years after the initiation of the GAP serious problems remain and questions surrounding the next steps persist. |
Discussion Questions 1. What are the criteria for establishing standards for the water quality of a River? 2. What factors beyond discharge rates affect the levels of pollutants in a waterway and their effects on the populations exposed to them? 3. The technology exists to clean waste water to drinking water standards and yet frequently even the most basic treatment technologies fail in India. What are the reasons for this and is the situation in India comparable to that in Europe or the United States? 4. Would strict enforcement of primary treatment requirements lead to significant improvements in the quality of the Ganges? What environmental conditions or problems would justify full funding for the implementation of secondary treatment plants? |
Question 1: The challenges of setting appropriate standards for water quality are manifold. Tens of thousands of pollutants may affect the quality of a river, with concentrations of the pollutants changing constantly. Scientists studying a river can reach dramatically different conclusions about the health of the system based only on differences in the location and timing of sample collection. Yet, economics dictate that sampling be limited in scope, which necessitates the adoption of conservative limits on many pollutants. Setting overly restrictive standards may unnecessarily restrict economic growth and may lead to many ignoring requirements for treatment. Like many governments, the strategy to protect Ganga's water quality involves a three fold approach: reducing inflows from point and non-point sources, providing funds for the construction of wastewater treatment plants and monitoring the quality of the river directly to determine if immediate action is needed to protect public health. As discussed in the broadcast, there is disagreement about the criteria and standards established to evaluate the river's health at both Varanasi and Kanpur. Measurements of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) are sensitive to slight changes in temperature and the short term appearance of organic matter in the River. While such parameters may provide an indication of the effects of sewage on the river, they do little to assess the likely concentrations of heavy metals, a potentially more serious problem. The selection of parameters to serve as "indicators" of the health of the river must reflect both the likely pollutants entering the river and must provide information about those pollutants most likely to cause health effects in the affected populations.
Question 2: Once discharged into a river, pollutants are immediately diluted, can be broken down or chemically changed, can settle into the sediments, can be absorbed by living organisms in the ecosystem or can persist as dissolved or suspended materials in the water. The fate of the pollutants is therefore a function of flow rates, the structure of the river and the structure of the ecosystem itself. Flow rates emerge as a significant issue in many areas.
Question 3: The effective implementation of treatment technologies depends on an understanding of the nature of the waste stream and the feasibility of consistently treating the waters reaching the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). Plants must be designed to accommodate expected flows, personnel must be trained to monitor the treatment and consistent electrical power is needed to meet the 24 hour per day requirements of an STP. The treatment plants along the Ganges seem to fail in each of these three criteria at least some of the time. Plants designed to handle tannery waste were not designed to remove heavy metals, salaries are not paid eliminating qualified workers from the facilities, and power failures result in the predictable daily discharge of untreated wastes into the River. Industries do not follow the requirements that they remove certain toxins prior to the discharge to the sewers, all resulting in the continued discharge of all pollutants into the River despite the considerable investment into treatment technologies.
Question 4: Primary treatment is effective for the removal of much of the suspended material flowing into a STP. When coupled with chlorination or UV sterilization (a technique used in the United States and Europe to kill pathogens), such treatment can reduce the incidence of disease causing organisms, BOD and toxic materials bound to the particles that settle out of the water. Primary treatment is not effective at removing dissolved materials in the water, including nutrients, heavy metals and many organic toxins. Secondary treatment removes more of the suspended materials, however is again less effective at reducing the discharges of heavy metals, nutrients and other dissolved pollutants. |
Further Resources Other Resources |