1

CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research InstituteNagpur

ISO 9001-2008

M. Karthik, Sr. Scientist

2

Protecting the environment

Economy of scale of waste treatment, thereby reducing cost of pollutionabatement for individual industry.

Minimizing problem of lack of technical assistance and trained personnel.

Reducing problem of lack of space in the individual industry.

Homogenization of wastewater industrial cluster.

Reducing the problem of monitoring by the regulatory agencies.

Organized disposal of treated effluent & sludge.

Improved sharing and dissemination of information towards environmentalmanagement.

Improving public image & employer morale.

CETP is concept of treating effluents in a common facility by collectiveeffort mainly for a cluster of SMEs units.

Concept is similar to the Municipal Corporation of cities and towns treatingsewage from the locality.

Common effluent treatment plant (CETP)

Objectives of CETP

We

neve

r kno

w th

e w

orth

of w

ater

till

the

wel

l is

dry.

Mod

ern

tech

nolo

gy…

..Ow

es e

colo

gy…

.An

apol

ogy.

3

• Small & Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) contribute significantly to Indianeconomy (7 % of GDP) despite stiff environmental regulations and competitionfrom neighboring countries in similar sectors (Leather, Textiles, Chemicals, Dye &Dye intermediates, Pharmaceuticals, Engineering Industries).

• Quantity of wastewater generated from SMEs may not be large, butunfortunately it aggregates to be a major pollution contributor in, Gujarat,Maharashtra, Punjab, Andrapradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal,Delhi.

• The major areas affected by pollution from these industry cluster includeAnkaleshwar, Vapi, Palsana, Ludhiana, Hyderabad, Tirupur, Vellore, Kanpur, andso on.

• MoEF issued a notification in January, 1991 to ensure compliance ofEnvironmental Standards in polluting industries.

• MoEF formulated 15 point programme for priority action to promote and setupCommon Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) in clusters of small scale industrialunits across the country.

• CETP is listed among 54 polluting industries.

Current Status and Issues in CETPs 

State wise operational CETPS in India*Sr. no. State No. of CETP Flow, MLD

1. Andhra Pradesh 3 12.752. Delhi 15 133.23. Gujarat 28** 500.354. Himachal Pradesh 4 1.15. Haryana 1 1.36. Karnataka 9@ -7. Madhya Pradesh 3 0.98. Maharashtra 23# 173.359. Punjab 4 57.7

10. Rajasthan 2 71.1511. Tamil Nadu 36 44.412 Uttar Pradesh 2 70

Total 130 1066.20

4

Source: *Central Pollution Control Board Report on Performance Status of Common Effluent TreatmentPlants in India, October 2005.

**Gujarat Pollution Control Board, 2010 .@Karnataka Pollution Control Board, 2012. #Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, 2012.

1 MLD – 1000 1m3/D

Current Status and Issues in CETPs 

Issues & constraints in CETP Operations

5

• Consistency in compliance to the prescribed standards by the CETPs.

• Existing treatment schemes are unable to handle emerging pollutants,stringent regulatory norms.

• Poor operations and maintenance of treatment units.

• No separate treatment units to deal with hazardous and toxic effluents.

• Lack of access to capital investments and working capitals.

VIABLETECHNOLOGY

MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

ECONOMY/COST

PLANNING COMMISSION 

CONSULTANTS/VENDORS

TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURERS

REGULATORY BODIES

Decision Makers for Selection of Viable Technologies

PUBLIC

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

VIABLE TECHNOLOGY

CAPITAL COST 

REJECT GENERATION.

O&M COST

WATER RECOVERY

TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE

SLUDGE PRODUCTION

D e c i s i o n F a c t o r s f o r S e l e c t i o n o f V i a b l e Te c h n o l o g i e s o p t i o n s

TREATMENT TIMEFOOT PRINT

Selection of an appropriate treatment option for optimum performance with due consideration to

investments requires comparison of different options with respect to certain criteria.

8

O t h e r F a c t o r s f o r S e l e c t i o n o f V i a b l e Te c h n o l o g i e s o p t i o n s Reliability

Measure of how well a system performs in relation to expectations without breakdowns or failure totreat wastewater to meet water quality objectives. Reliability also is associated with simplicity ofoperation and ease of maintenance. Reliable systems that require highly skilled operators and carefulmaintenance would be less appropriate.

SimplicitySimplicity of operation and ease of maintenance. This is highly desirable for CETPs designed for SMEs.Generally, options that require low personnel skill levels are preferred for CETP to options that requireshigh skills. This generally goes along with simplicity of operation and ease of maintenance.

Adaptability to change in influent quality and flow rateThis is a very important criterion for CETPs designed for SMEs because wastewater quality and quantitytends to be more variable than for conventional municipal wastewater treatment.

Ease and availability of major equipmentThis is a primary consideration in the design. If the equipment is not available locally or regionally, or isnot available at a price that is reasonable due to high transportation costs, the option can be excludedfrom further consideration.

Post installation service/chemical deliverySystems that minimize post installation service for CETPs are desirable. If chemicals are used, it is criticalthat they be readily available.

Energy utilizationGenerally, options that require no or low energy are preferred for CETPs designed for SMEs to those thatare energy intensive.

9

Source: NEERI Report, 2002

Treatment Scheme of CETP Ankaleshwar

Primary Secondary

Tertiary

Fit for the purpose of

Treatment level

Contaminants removed

Wastewater Treatment processes

Solids treatment processes and outputs

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Advanced

Preliminary

Dischargeintosurfacewaterbodies

Reusepossibilities

•Screening•Shredding•Grit removal•Pre-oxidation(chlorine/ozone)

Large floating suspended solids & grit removed

Suspended solids &  some heavy 

metals removed

Suspended solids (e.g. biodegradable organics, volatile organics) 

and some nutrient(N&P) removed

More nurient (N&P), dissolved solids, 

heavy metals & pathogens (viruses, bacteria, protozoa, 

helminthes)

Remove organics, salts,ionic contaminants, 

microorganisms, viruses

•Chemical precipitation•Electro-coagulation•Chemical oxidation•Anaerobic reactor

•Activated sludge process•Anaerobic reactors•Moving bed bio reactor•Sequential batch reactor•Oxidation/aeration pond•Catalytic oxidation

•Clarification•Filtration,•Activated carbon adsorption•Disinfection•Advanced oxidation

•Membrane filtration•Evaporation (2-5 stage)•Advanced oxidation

Sludgetreatment•Thickening•Stabilization•Dewatering•drying

•Sludge drying bead•Solar evaporation•Incineration•Land Fill  

Wastewater from Tannery, Textile, Chemicals, Pharmaceutical, dye & dye intermediates, Engineering units

Selection for technology based on effluent quality for CETPs

WWC High BOD Low BOD High CODHigh TD

S

(Highly organic effluent fully biodegradable)•Anaerobic + aerobic  /•Incineration + secure landfill

(Organic salt, no need for biological treatment )•Solar, forced evaporation •Membrane technologies 

(Waste not easily biodegradable but toxic)•Thermal destruction•Chemical treatment•Chemical oxidation•Evaporation + Secured landfill

Low TDS

Organic effluent, fully biodegradable :‐•Anaerobic + aerobic treatment

(Low organic & inorganic effluent)•Recycle and reuse after preliminary treatment 

(Highly organic effluent not easily biodegradable)•Thermal destruction•Chemical oxidation•Chemical + biological treatment

‐ ‐ Highly inorganic effluent, not suitable for biological treatment :‐•Chemical recovery•Chemical oxidation+ biologicaltreatment 

Source: Common Effluent Treatment Plants-State of the Art, NEERI 1991, Sponsored by Ministry of Environment & Forests,Technical EIA Guidance for Common Effluent Treatment Plants, ILFS Eco Smart Ltd, Hyderabad 2010, Prepared for Ministry of Environment & Forests.

12

Inlet effluent quality and discharge Standards for CETPParameters Influent Quality

pH 5.5 - 9.0

Temperature (oC) 45.0

Oil and grease 20.0

Cyanide 2.0

Ammoniacal-N 50.0

Phenolic compounds 5.0

Hexavalent Chromium 2.0

Total chromium 2.0

Copper 3.0

Nickel 3.0

Zinc 15.0

Lead 1.0

Arsenic 0.2

Mercury 0.01

Cadmium 1.0

Selenium 0.05

Fluoride 15.0

Boron 2.0

All values are expressed in mg/l, except pH and temperature.Source: The gazette of India: Extraordinary- Part II- Sec.3 (i) pp10 Dt. 27th Feb 1991

Parameters Effluent Discharge Standards for ISWpH 5.5-9.0

SS 100

TDS 2100

COD 250

BOD (3d, 27°C) 30

Oil & Grease 10

Chlorides 600

Sulphates 1000

Phosphates 5

Ammoniacal-N 50

Fluoride 2.0

Arsenic 0.2

Cyanide 0.2

Mercury 0.01

Iron 3

Manganese 2

Chromium 2

Copper 3

Zinc 5

Nickel 3

Lead 0.1

Selenium 0.05

All values are expressed in mg/l, except pHISW-Inland Surface Waters.

13

Selection of an appropriate treatment option for optimum performance with due

consideration to investments requires comparison of different options with

respect to certain criteria.

Parameter governing selection of wastewater treatment options Capital cost O&M costs Treatment performance Water recovery Treatment time Foot print Sludge production Reject generation.

Multicriterion analysis was adopted to aid in selection of optimum pre-treatment

technology. This technique is used to aid decision making in many environmental

issues which carries uncertainties associated with discrete and hazy

characteristics for ranking with moderate acceptability.

Ranking of technology options for Membrane Filtration Systems –

A Case Study of a Textile Cluster

14

• Assessment of the pre-treatment modules for zero effluent liquid discharge was doneusing FAHP and MATLAB software to rank and select an optimum pre-treatmentmodule used in medium scale textile industries.

• The major multicriteria parameters considered for decision making in ranking arecapital, operation & maintenance, footprint, performance and sludge generation.

• The AHP was achieved in four stages: decomposition, pair wise comparison ofdecision criteria, generation of priority vectors and synthesis.

• In the first step, the criteria was broken-down into a number of small constituentelements followed by pair wise comparison of criteria within the elements using a setof rules, with Saaty nine point’s scale.

• The matrix A was formulated and the element of criteria to be evaluated was placedat the upper triangle and the lower triangle of matrix is reciprocal of upper triangle.The diagonal of matrix is always one. The priority vector or weighted criterion wasderived normalizing matrix [A] across the row.

Pre-treatment moduleI : CP-PSF- ACF; II : CP-ASP-DMF; III : ASP-Cl; IV : CP-ASP-CPV : O3 - ASP - PSF – ACA; VI : EC - SBR – CP; VII : CO; VIII : CP - CP- CP-PSF-ACA

Ranking of technology options for Membrane Filtration Systems - A CaseStudy of Textile Cluster

15

Approach to select the best pre-treatment module for membrane separation process

AHP - Analytical Hierarchy Process; PTM - Pre-treatment Module; MSF- Membership Function; FAHP- Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process

16

Performance Treatment option Efficiency (%)

High Chemical precipitationbio-oxidationchemical precipitationsandfiltration activated carbon adsorption

BOD : 84-93COD : 80-90 SS : 77-98Chemical precipitationbio-oxidationsand filtrationdual media filtration

Chemical precipitation (3 stage)media filtrationactivated carbon adsorption

Ozonationbio-oxidationsand filtrationactivated carbon adsorption.

Moderate Electro-coagulationbio-oxidationchemical precipitationsand filtrationactivated carbon adsorption.

BOD : 68-79COD : 60-73SS : 64-78

Low Bio-oxidationsand filtrationdual media filtrationactivated carbon adsorption

BOD : 56-70COD : 48-65SS : 52-74Chemical precipitationsand filtrationactivated carbon adsorption

Catalytic oxidation BOD : 24-25COD : 21-23SS : 56-60

Performance of primary, secondary and tertiary treatment

Pre-treatment moduleI : OZ - ASP - PSF – ACFII : CP-ASP-CP - PSF - ACFIII : CP-ASP-PSF-DMF-MF

Final Ranking of Pre-treatment Technologies based on the study

17

Areas for improvement in CETPs 

• Reduce pollutant loads received by the CETP through adoption of in‐house keeping, cleaner technologiesresulting in lower treatment cost.

• Induction of energy efficient technologies particularly in oxygen transfer in activated sludge process(diffused aeration systems), gas transfer, solids separation and thermal decomposition.

• Replacement of major energy intensive electrical components with high efficiency motors for aerators,blowers, pumps and centrifuges e.g. variable‐frequency drives.

• Development of energy efficient advanced oxidation for organic and recalcitrant compounds inwastewater.

• Improvements in membrane performance and development of lower pressure waste water specificmembranes (e.g. reduced fouling, increased flux, improved rejection, increased longevity, etc.).

• Concentrate/reject treatment and disposal strategies for zero liquid discharge schemes.

• Improvements and cost reductions in thermal processes for chemicals and energy recovery such asevaporation and plasma incineration.

• Installation of SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) based systems for better operational andmanagement control of the CETPs.

• Combined heat and power (CHP) as an option to generate energy/power.

• Utilization of sludge/solids as raw material for construction activities after ascertaining its properties.

18Source: greenpeace.org, http://www.worldbanktribunal.org/1

....Despite widespread acknowledgement that CETPs cannot clean poisonous industrial wastewaters

Indian express

http://tirupurgarmentcity.blogspot.in/

NAME OF CHEMICALS IMPACT ON HUMANS

Organochlorinecompound

Disturbs endocrine activity specially thyroid activity, causes risk of type II debates

Chlorinated naphthalene Saviour skin rashes and liver disease

Chlorinated toluene Affect nervous system and Causes mortality

Hexachlorobenzene Causes kidney and liver problemand increase the risk of cancer

Polychlorinated biphenyl Affects immune system, reproductive system, endocrine system.

Cost of Operation & Management in CETPS

19

Industry CAPITAL COST(Rs /MLD)

OM COST (Rs/m3 )

Treatment technology Source 

Tanneries 80 21‐66 CCPT, ASP, RO, Sludge handling

https://www.elaw.org/system/files/India2000.pdf

Textile (Bleaching & Dyeing)

42 20‐120 CCPT, AO,ASP, RO, EVP,SLM

CPCB, 2005& NEERI Report 2011

Heterogeneous effluents 

51‐87 12‐25 CCPT, ASP, PSF, ACF CPCB, 2005

Conclusion

A worldwide attention has been directed towards protection of water suppliesand aquatic ecosystems due environmental damages, litigation and watershortages due to improper treatment and discharge.

A country like India is in need of advanced wastewater management process, toavoid environmental damages in future, which comes at a price. Hence there isthe need of CETP’S for SME’s. As far as possible CETPs may be designed andproposed keeping homogeneous effluent nature.

New technologies offers significantly higher pollutant removal rates and arecapable of elimination of majority of hazardous pollutants. Technologies basedon pressure‐driven membranes, new adsorbents, electro coagulation, advancedoxidation and ion exchange systems offer higher pollutant reduction rates. Theyare expected to become the predominant treatment technologies in the nearfuture.

Reuse and recycle of water in all sectors have intensified in India across tannery,textile, electroplating, chemicals, pharmaceutical and dye units. Attention shouldbe devoted to the technologies where sludge production is low, clean andpossibly safely disposed/used.

Combined heat and power (CHP) as an option may be proposed in CETPS intakingorganic wastes (Eg. Tanneries).