CETP was promoted by MoEF in 1984 to treat wastewater from small and medium scale industries sector (SMIs). First CETP was constructed in1985 in Jeedimelta near Hyderabad. CETP was followed by other states in TN, MP, Gujarat, and Maharashtra.
A bulk environmental pollution is caused by SMIs. Small scale industries policy has no thought for environmental planning. For the effluent from SSIs the concept of CETP was introduced. The MoEF has instructed the SPCB to establish CETPs in different industrial estates in respective states. It said that the central will provide upto 25% of the total cost of CETP and the remaining should be contributed by state government and industries.
This CETP has failed because of heterogeneous nature of the effluent from different industries. Clean production advocates reducing the toxic materials at source of manufacture. Clean production concept consists of 4 elements precautionary principle, preventive principle, democratic principle, holistic principle.
Objective of CETP:
• To achieve “economics of scale” in waste treatment, by reducing cost for individual factories.
• To minimize the problem of lack of technicians and human resource.
• Solve the problem of lack of space.
• Reduce the problem of monitoring the PCB.
• To organize the disposal of treated wastes and sludge and
• To improve the recycling and reuse possibilities.
Government policies for pollution prevention:
• Prevent pollution at source.
• Encourage, develop and apply the best available practical technical solutions.
• Ensure that polluters pay for the pollution control arrangements.
• Focus protection on heavily polluted areas.
• Involve public in decision making.
• Increase safety of industrial operations.
CETP had failed not only because heterogeneous nature of effluent. When huge load in on CETP applied during rains the effluent gets leached into ground water. No space for construction of CETP.
You need to be a member of Paryavaran.com- Indian Environment Network to add comments!
Comments
I don't think it s a complete flop system in India. It has played a significant role in reducing the pollution to a small extent, the main issue in my opinion is the poor selection of technology & staff due to financial limitations. The industry owners can contribute only to some extent; if the government is benefited financially from these industries then it should come forward for much larger assistance to make these types of projects successful.
Yes, I agree with views passed in this predicament. I am working in a Waste Reception Centre as a Waste Water Specialist, where the inflow of Liquid waste is of heterogeneous nature and setting the treatment is challenging, but is designed always in terms of required parameters. Thus the 'Failure' is in terms of proper knowledge application and treatment design
What you have aired is right. Heterogeneity of primary effluent from individual industry is only one among many reasons.
1. A true inventory of chemicals in the effluent is not made. Many industries use undeclared chemicals that can defeat the treatment process.
2. Quality of influent to CETP is not ensured. Many industries bypass their primary treatment facilities for convenience.
3. Design of the CETP is not often appropriate. In food industry high input of fat-oil-grease (FOG) is not considered in the design. Similarly for textile effluent aeration-flocculation-settling is bound to fail in the absence of adequate BOD.
A lot more may be added. However, fly-by-night contracting firms and consultants ahve done enough damage.
PS
Many industries found it convenient to dump waste chemicals as coagulants, and many people benefited out of it, at the cost of performance of CETP.
YOU CAN NOT BLAME THE CETP'S. It was an great idea because the small scale industries will never be able to handle effluent treatment and also the SPCB has only one point to monitor i.e. the outlet of the CETP and not the individual outlets of all the industries.
The scheme does not work because of the following reasons
1) The CETP's are designed on the basis of the effluent quantity as given by the industry for the design. Here everything goes wrong. The industries will never give the correct quantity of the effluent being generated. Most of the industries consider the quantity of the process waste water as their efffluent load but do not consider the blowdown, washings, the grey water.
What the designer should ask is, the what quantity of water the industry is going to use. That figure the industry will never give wrong. The designer then should consider this quantity for the effluent itself and forget about the losses. This will give some cushion to the hydraulic load
2) Most of the CETP's have been designed on the basis of sewage treatment plant without due consideration to the primary treatment.
3) The finalisation of the CETP design and awarding the contract for its construction is in the hands of people who do not have any knowledge of industrial chemistry. Many a times it so happens that two industries generate clear effluent but as soon it mixes, it generates great quantity of suspended solids. All these aspects are never known to the consultant or the person who is awarding the contract, unless a good treatability is conducted.
4) The underground drainage system is the biggest drawback of the CETP. If some culprit drains acidic or high COD effluent because he does not want to treat or the batch has failed, by the time it reaches the CETP it is too late and the people at CETP will never know who has drained it.
5) Also industries change their products as per the orders received or sometimes manufacture products which are not even listed in consents which is popularly known as job work.
So why blame the concept of CETP if the system is at fault. So changes should be made in the system. Technocrats who are good in industrial chemistry should be made part of the core deciding authority but what actually happens is they never become part of the system for the simple reason is they also do not want their flaws in their plant to be made public.
I have been part of operation of an cetp for last 19 years (which is a fact). So before drawing out swords and daggers for my comments, Beware. (just a joke). I would be happy to receive any kind of remarks