Common Effluent Treatment Plants

GOVT. INCENTIVES AND REGULATIONS

The  concept  of  common  effluent  treatment  plant  in itself  is  in the phase of development. As regards conceptualization of project,  construction,  operation  and  achieving  the required  treatment efficiency  the  entire  mechanism has to be viewed in totality.  Moreover  the  CETP  for  all practical and techno-economic consideration is a viable treatment option for small scale industrial units, wherein the member units and CETP management share equal responsibilities for achieving desired efficacy.

The proposal from project proponents may be sent to the State Pollution Control Board and the State Govt. for their approval and State subsidy and to Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India for the Central Subsidy. The project proponent for CETP (company) may also obtain loan from any nationalised bank.

 

Criteria for Assistance
 

    1. Toxicity of pollutant
    2. Pollution load treated
    3. Number of units covered
Pattern of Assistance
  Procedure
 

The company will obtain loan from the IDBI or any other financial institutions. The project proponent for CETP (company) will approach the State  Govt./Central  Govt.  for their contribution of their subsidy. The subsidy would be released into the account of the company opened in the IDBI (or any other financial institutions).

 

 

 

Resource Recovery---a case with chrome tanning

 

The  Chrome tanning of hides is carried out by employing  Basic Chrome sulphate (BCS) as the tanning agent. The quantity of BCS  employed is 60-80 kg per 1000 kg  hide processed. This BCS quantity on average contains 9.04 kg chromium as metal. The  chronology  of  the chrome  recovery  is  summarised  in  the following  text.  It  is established that in case of conventional process, even after the chrome tanning is complete wherein the chrome absorption by the hide is only 60%, the spent tan liquor still contains a significant concentration (upto 40%) of chromium which can be recovered by the mechanism described below.
 

Step 1. Collection of spent Tan liquor

Step 2. Maintenance of pH of spent liquor at 8 to 8.2 by adding MgO(0.5% of spent liquor) to optimize the precipitation of chrome(in sludge).

Step 3. The mixture is stirred and allowed to settle down for few hours. The chrome in the form of chrome hydroxide gets settled.  

Step 4. The   supernatant   containing   insignificant   quantity   of  chromium  concentration  is  liable  to  be
discarded.  

Step 5. The  chrome sludge is dissolved in 98% concentration sulphuric acid (quantity of which is 0.1% of spent liquor). This mixture is worth of blending with freshly made chrome tan liquor.

Step 6. It  is  generally  believed  that  recovery of chromium in a properly designed and operated recovery plant could be somewhere around 98% of the chromium in the spent tanned liquor.

 

 

 
 
COMMON EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANTS

 

A Boon to Small Scale Industries
 
 

 

 

 

 
COMFORTABLE FINANCE
C
 

 

 

Government Incentives through its subsidiary Institutions provide much needed financial inputs, a significant boost, especially for small scale sector. 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
EASIER OPERATION
E 

 

 

Establishment of individual treatment plants become unacceptable by SSIs due to extreme characteristics of untreated effluent and high qualitative variance therein. A skilled operational staff becomes an affordable option in CETP, wherein all the member units can identify a management group from within, for its effective operation. 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 
TREATMENT AT LOW COST
T
 

 

 

Source specific effluent quality( extreme pH , BOD, colour, nutritive value & metals etc. )which would otherwise render their treatment ac costly preposition, becomes homogenized in CETP and significantly reduce the treatment cost.

 
 

 

 

 

 
PRAGMATIC REGULATION
P 

 

 

Performance evaluation and its surveillance for implementation of qualitative measures in large nos. of individual plants, at times become a difficult task for regulatory authorities. All this become easily manageable in case of CETP.

 



PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM OF TYPICAL CHROME  RECOVERY  PLANT 

 

RECOMMENDED PROVISIONS

It  is  an  observed  fact that the desired efficacy of the CETP depends on simulated efforts on the part of the CETP management,  entrusted  with  the  task  of operation and maintenance, as well as, on the member-industrial-units. Although there are stipulated standards prescribed for effluent quality for inlet to and outlet from CETPs, much is required for regulatory provisions by making them more comprehensive which in-turn shall help ensuring effective implementation of stipulated recommendations besides making all the member units equally accountable for any aberrations.

 

OPTION I :  THE    CASE    WHERE    CETP    MANAGEMENT   IS   EXCLUSIVELY   CONSTITUTED   BY REPRESENTATIVES  FROM THE CONCERNED INDUSTRIES.
 

RECOMMENDATION
 

Considering the nature of job and prevailing mode of effluent disposal, the concerned individual industries be given prescribed  effluent  standards,  to  be  complied  by  them  either at  their  outlet  or  at the final outlet of the CETP concerned.  In  this  case  seeking  consent  be  made  obligatory  only  for   the  individual  industry  and  the CETP management be kept free from such obligation.

 

OPTION II : WHERE THE CETP  MANAGEMENT IS AN INDEPENDENT BODY AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION OF  THE INDUSTRIES CONCERNED.
 

RECOMMENDATION "A" 

Two  separate  standards  be  prescribed,  the  PRIMARY STANDARDS  in  terms  of  pH,SS and/or Chromium be stipulated  for  the  individual  units  and  the  SECONDARY  STANDARDS (Comprehensive)  in  terms  of  all the relevant parameters, be prescribed for the CETP management. In this case, seeking consent be made obligatory on the part  of  the  Individual  industries,  as  well as for  the  CETP  management.  Moreover,   there  should   be   an agreement among the individual industries and the CETP management for achieving the prescribed characteristics of the treated effluent.The modalities of agreement should be such that in the event of any aberrations, at least the levying of equity contribution from member units for operation and maintenance of CETP are rendered liable to be reviewed under intimation to the apex authority.
 

RECOMMENDATION "B"  

Although   the  Primary   and  Secondary    Standards be  prescribed  as  mentioned  in Recommendation  "A", the compliance  only  of  the Secondary  Standards  be  adjudged  at  the  final  outlet of the CETP , and only the CETP management  be  held  responsible  for  any  aberrations  in  (Secondary) standard compliance. Moreover, seeking consent  in  this  case  be  made  obligatory  only  for  the  CETP  management.  However,  in  the  event  the CETP management  feels  that  the individual  unit  fails  to comply  the  Primary Standards, it may,under intimation to the concerned  appellate  authority,  discontinue  accepting effluent  from that defaulting unit,and the unit henceforth be treated as operating without the valid consent.