Important of ETP:

Textile industries, particularly the dyeing component, produce wastewater, otherwise known as effluent, as a by-product of theirproduction. This effluent contains several pollutants, which can be removed with the help of an ETP. The outputs from an ETP are normally “clean” water, the extent of cleanliness being dependenton the components of the ETP and quality of the effluent inputtedto the system. Effluents from dye houses need to be treated to produce an effluent that conforms to Bangladesh environmental standards.

Definition of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP)

ETP stands for ‘Effluent Treatment Plant’. Effluent can be treated in a number of different ways depending on the composition of the effluent and the level of treatment required. These levels could be classified into the following types: Preliminary, Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary. The mechanisms fortreatment can be divided into three broad categories: Physical, Chemical, and Biological. Many of these processes are used together in a single treatment plant.

Types of Effluent Treatment Plant:There are three effluent treatment plant which are: Physic-chemical treatment plant Chemical-biological plant Biological treatment plant

1. Chemical treatment plant:In this process effluent water are mainly converted into sludge of metal complex by chemical reaction. Then it is separated from the water and dried and dipped into the soil. But the sludge remain activate which is harmful.

Effluent ----Sludge of metal complex ---Dry sludge ---Dipped intosoil

1

2. Biological treatment plant:This process is mainly build up by using microorganism. This is Bacteria, Amoeba,and Protozoa. Bectoria are two types, one is Anaerobic and Aerabic . First one is hazardous for our environment and second one is friendly for our environment. In here Bacteria break the bond of harmful chemical by enzyme secretion. As a result harmful chemical converted into environmental friendly. The sludge produces by this process is also used as different functions such as fertilizer fuel in the brick field.Methods of wastewater treatment A complete treatment of a mixed textile effluent consists of the following steps:Physicochemical pre-treatment is adopted to remove often part of the recalcitrant COD and/or suspended solids.· Biological treatment. Conventional activated sludge systems have the capability to remove large fractions of COD. A combined anaerobic and aerobic treatment is also effective to remove azodyes.· Physicochemical post-treatment. Removal of dyes and remaining recalcitrant COD can be achieved by activated carbon treatment, sorption processes, membrane filtration, oxidation processes and so on. Concentrated streams with non-biodegradable substances should preferably be treated at source. If this is not the case, biological treatment can be optimized by the addition of activated carbon or can be improved by coupling with advanced oxidation processes. Alternatively, decentralized treatments, such as membrane treatment, can be used to recover non-biodegradable chemicals. Major ongoing developments seek for minimizing and rationalizing water consumption, as well as establishing cost-effective treatment units that increase the degree of water loop closure. Water is often reused in washing and desizing processes for a lower water quality demand.

Effluent Treatment Plant Schematic Diagram.

2

History of Effluent Treatment Plant

At a time when environmental consciousness is growing rapidly inthe industrialized countries and when eco-labeling is demanded with mounting determination, reducing the environmental impact of production is becoming a pressing need for industries throughout the world. In the case of SME clusters such a need acquires greater urgency because of the degree of sect oral specialization and of the limit financial capacities of the individual entrepreneurs. Under such conditions, the inability to reduce the environmental impact of production reduces the competitiveness not only of a handful of producers but of the entire local economy. As a result, a conflict may emerge betweenenvironmental protection and economic viability, challenging thevery notion of sustainable economic development. Remarkably similar problems were confronted at the end of the 1970s in manyItalian districts. This paper is an attempt to reflect upon the institutional solutions which were identified and implemented in two such districts, namely the ceramics district of Nove and the leather district of Arzignano, both of which arelocated in the Veneto region. The paper has also a more

3

ambitious purpose, namely to uncover how the establishment of consortia solutions to environmental problems influenced the institutional set-up of the two districts. In order to gain someinsight inside such issues, it is however necessary to describe how a public-private partnership was established with the purpose of responding to the collective challenge faced by the district. Only at a later stage will it be possible to understand to what extent the creation of a water processing plant can be analyzed not only as the institutional response to an existing challenge, but also as the starting point to elaborate strategies for the entire district. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an introduction to the key features of the Italian legislation on water pollution. Section 3 and 4 introduce the two case studies relating to the districts of Nove and Arzignano. The presentation of the two institutional initiatives will be chronological and it will provide the elements for thecomparative analysis attempted in section 5. Particular emphasis will be given to the following themes: a) the perception of a collective challenge, b) the emergence of acollective solution, c) its implementation, and d) its institutional evolution. Theidentification of policy guidelines will be attempted in section 6 where an ideal-typical path to the establishment ofa water treatment plant in a developing country is presented.

THE EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT OF NOVE (VICENZA)

The effluent treatment plant located near the village of Noveservices theproducers from the local ceramic SME cluster as well as a range of SME enterpriseslocated in the area near Bassano del Grappa. The facility is owned by a consortium(CADA - Consorzio Artigiano Depurazione Acque1) which was established by theartisan association of Vicenza in 1981 to help the artisan enterprises of Bassano

4

solving their effluent water problems2. Initially, over 150 firms supported the consortiumand paid for that purpose the relatively low subscription fee3. Such an enthusiasticresponse may appear surprising at first sight and its features deserve to be spelt out.With reference to section 2, the reader needs to be reminded that by 1981 waterpollution legislation was in full operation (since 1979). Micro-scaled enterprisesoperating in industrial sectors such as ceramics, wood-crafting, painting and autorepair were heavily exposed to fines because of the toxic nature of the chemicalcompounds they were making use of, albeit in very small amounts. As a result of theirconcentration in a densely-populated small-scale urban area4,the entrepreneurs who1 Artisan Consortium Water Purification2 As from its statute, CADA can process water from enterprises operating within the Region and, up for a third, from non-artisan enterprises (small-, medium- and large-scaleones). In order not to interfere with the endeavours undertaken by its counterparts in neighbouring provinces (recall that all producers’ association are organised on a provincial basis which is further coordinated at a regional level), the artisan association has preferred to focus upon the producers located in the province of Vicenza. For quite obvious reasons, the bulk of CADA’s clients are currently located in the proximity of the facility.3 Actually only about 20 such entrepreneurs signed the statute of the Consortium, while the rest rapidly paid in their subscription fees.4 In 1991 the area around which the facility gravitated (namely the clusters of Bassano Del Grappa andOf Marostica) held over 150,000 inhabitants with a population density of 284 inhabitants per squarekilometre (against a national average of 188 and a regional average of 235). Bassano del Grappa

5

(locally the largest urban concentration) holds however no more than 35,000 inhabitants: as such isone of the clearest examples of the ‘urbanised countryside’ which is among the key distinguishingfeatures of much of the Third Italy.4participated in the constitution of CADA had found themselvesamong the easiesttargets of the environment protection agencies operating locally5.Individual attempts to tackle the problem of water pollution had beenundertaken over the previous two years, albeit with little success. Privately-operatedwaste treatment facilities proved widely beyond the reach of most artisans because oftheir very high costs compared to the low water volumes to beprocessed. Secondly,attempts to pre-treat effluent water in-house had generally failed because thetechnology was insufficiently geared to the needs of small-scale producers. As such, itrequired the producers not only to bear considerable fixed costs abut also to forgo largeamounts of space within their workshops. The solutions identified by the individualartisans were therefore proving to be nothing but short-term fixes. A collectivechallenge was therefore slowly emerging within the cluster.The artisan association was in a privileged position to contemplate the mountingdissatisfaction of many micro-sized producers. Rarely did they present to theirassociation the clearly-defined demand for a support initiative. Most commonly, theyvoiced their distress towards the environment protection agency6 arguing that theviability of their business was challenged. Initially, the artisan association envisaged

6

CADA as an attempt to provide its members with an “institutional shelter” from theenvironment protection agency. Its line of reasoning was simple: the public opinion andthe local institutions were more likely to display some ‘flexibility’ if they could beconvinced a) that the artisans had taken the problem of waterpollution seriously (i.e.that they were not trying to dodge the law) and b) that any lasting solution requiredsignificant investments (i.e. it took time and possibly some public sponsoring). Whileindividually the artisans had little hope to achieve such a result, as an organised groupthey certainly did.5 Typically, the entrepreneur would need to ask for a permit to discharge water into the main sewagenetwork directly to the township where his or her workshop was located. The request needs to becompleted with a certified chemical analysis of a water sample which needs to satisfy therequirements set at a national level (by the 1979 law). Workshops can also be the target of randomwater tests performed by the local health authority - Unità Sanitaria Locale6 Repeatedly the key target of the unrest was the township administration that would refuse the permitto discharge effluent water into the main sewage network and therefore required separate treatment. Asa result, a climate of distrust typically characterised the relationships between the artisan and the localauthorities. It therefore took a great deal of investment (ofthe time and resources of the ArtisanAssociation) to convince the artisans that the local institutions shared an interest in the well-being ofthe local economy and that they could therefore participate actively to attempts to solve the mountingenvironmental problems. The role of producers’ association with respect to such issues should not be

7

under-emphasised.5Over the following years, CADA operated simultaneously on twolevels. Onthe one hand, it contacted the local public institutions and it put forward a stylisedproject for the establishment of a dedicated waste managementfacility. The regionalgovernment proved by far most responsive institution at this stage providing significantinsurance that it would co-finance the project for up to 50% of its costs. Secondly, theconsortium signed an agreement with a waste management facility operating locally.The purchase of a bulk quantity of water to be processed ensured a discount onprocessing costs. Such a feature was crucial because it enabled the associatedartisans to invest in the construction of those water storagetanks within their premiseswhich still constitute the core of the effluent processing system.By 1985, CADA had gained over 350 associates and the need wasemerging torealise its own treatment facility7. Not only was the amount of water to be processedgrowing steadily, but the most senior members of the artisan association wereincreasingly convinced that dependency upon an external provider could in the long runexpose the members of the consortium to monopolistic pressures. CADA and theartisan association jointly identified an adequate site within the township of Nove andpurchased it. Liaison with the township administration were immediately initiated toacquire the necessary authorisations. In 1986, CADA put forward a tender for the

8

definition of the project of the facility and it assembled a group of well-respectedprofessionals operating in the region (University professors,consultants, civil servants)to scrutiny the various options. By November of the same yearthe townshipadministration granted the necessary building permits. In theearly months of 1987 theconstruction of the waste management facility was under way.At first sight it may appear that it took an awfully long time (over six years) forthe consortium to become fully operative. First of all, it needs to be reminded that overthe first few years the constitution of the consortium was intended more as a politicalthan as operative move. Indeed, the 150 associates of CADA represented a7 The purchase of the plot as well as the realisation of the treatment plant was co-funded by the Regionand by the members of CADA for a total cost of 1.5 Lit billion (little less than 1.5 million 1996 USD). Asfar as the artisans are concerned, their association devised a scheme to differentiate among itsmembers according to the historic amount of effluent water discharged. The subscription fees thusdevised ranged from Lit. 400,000 to Lit. 1,200,000 (from 450 to 1300 1996 USD). Such one-offsubscription did not entitle the artisan to use the treatmentfacility (in order to do so he or she wouldhave to pay a further fixed annual subscription plus a tariffproportional to the amount and thecharacteristics of the water effectively processed) and it was meant to fund the initial investment. Theone-off subscription charged was scrapped in 1991 and the artisans who affiliated after that data werenot requested to pay it.6significant political constituency but they were clearly far too few to bear the significant

9

start up costs for a waste management facility even with the match-up funds from theregional government. Secondly, it took time to devise and implement a viable systemto collect water from the associates and to deliver it to thetreatment facility. As thefirst few years passed, the viability of the technical solutions was disclosed and thenumber of associates increased. Thirdly, the artisan association had to invest quite abig deal of its own financial and human resources to sensitise the artisans about theadvantages stemming from direct ownership of a waste treatment facility especially interms of a) insuring themselves against malpractice suits andb) exercising somecontrol upon pricing policies. In the end, the late 1980s proved that the contributions ofthe artisans could not match the financial requirements of the project originallypresented to the Region. CADA had therefore to work out an acceptable compromisewith the local institutions8.By March 1988 the facility was terminated. After the necessary tests, the facilitycame into full operation in the early months of 1989. It was soon awarded a prize fromthe European Community because of its innovative institutional features. Over the firstyears of its operation, CADA not only owned the Nove facilitybut it was also entirelyresponsible for its daily running. Initially, the artisans involved in the consortiumdisplayed a great deal of enthusiasm: the facility not only solved their pollutionproblems but it also constituted the first and tangible outcome of a collaborativeprocess at the local level. As a result, the general meetingsof the members were well

10

attended and it proved remarkably easy to identify motivated artisans to join themanaging board of CADA. By the early 1990s, the enthusiasm was enhanced by rapidlyfalling water processing as the facility was increasingly used to process ‘external’effluent waters (i.e. from non-members). Unfortunately the move proved to beunsustainable because the facility was accepting water which could not be adequatelyprocessed thus discharging toxic gaseous compounds9. Public unrest about the facilitymounted and a legal action was undertaken against CADA. For ashort time the facility8 Ex post it is quite clear that this compromise led to the definition of project which was significantlyunder-scaled with respect to the optimal scale of operation of a waste management facility. In the mid-1980s, however, experience with operating such kind of facilities was relatively under-developed. As aresult, it proved still possible to convince the public counterpart (the Province of Vicenza and the Region)to endorse its realisation and to provide the necessary authorisations9 It must be stressed that this event was largely unexpected even to the environment experts of theartisan association. In principle, the Nove facility had beenplanned so that it could process a broad7was shut and its president (an automobile repairman from Bassano del Grappa) waseven taken to court.While the ensuing legal case had luckily very mild consequences for CADA(which was found to be liable only for negligence), it clearly constituted the watershed inits life. From this time onwards, management of the facility was tendered out to a

11

professional agency and the extent of the artisans’ participation to the life of theconsortium died off. Furthermore the late 1990s witnessed theemergence ofnumerous private waste management facilities in the area. While CADA doubtlesslyacted as a template for such initiatives10 it is however proving unable to profit from itslonger history because of its relatively small scale. Larger plants can nowadaysaccommodate multiple processing lines and they therefore enjoy significantly lower unitcosts.4 THE EXPERIENCE OF FIC IN ARZIGNANOThis effluent treatment plant is located within the leather-manufacturingindustrial district of Arzignano. The plant is owned by the FIC (Fognature Industriali eCivili11) consortium whose members are the six township administrations of theChiampo Valley12. The consortium was created in 1973. Recently a discussion hasbeen started among its members to turn it into a share-holding company with greaterprivate participation in the managing board. The facility occupies an area of over120,000 m2 at the outskirts of the village of Montorso and itaccommodates twoprocessing lines: a chemical line to handle the toxic chemical compounds fromrange of water types (including those that were effectively discharged), even after it had been scaleddown. Much to the surprise of the involved parties, the actual plant did not display such a feature.10 In the early 1980s, as the demand for some kind of supportwith water processing was emergingmost visibly in the area, the artisan association (through one of its consultants) explored informally the

12

opportunity of convincing private entrepreneurs to undertake such an activity. In fact, the associationopted for an autonomous move and it turned to the regional government only when it was confronted bythe scepticism displayed by the private sector. The main cause for such lack of enthusiasm certainlyresided in the high uncertainty surrounding both the economicviability of water processing facilities andthe willingness to pay of its potential clients. As both suchproblems lost much of their significance,private entrepreneurs did not fail to pick up a valid business opportunity.11 Industrial and Household Sewage12 The consortium was originally established (and therefore it only processed the water discharged bythe producers) by three such townships, namely Arzignano, Chiampo and Montorso, namely the areaswhich are located downstream in the valley and which host theoverwhelming majority of leatherprocessingfirms. Since 1986, the townships of Altissimo, Crespadoro andSan Pietro have also joinedthe consortium. Much of the water from such areas comes however from households and it thereforehas a relatively minor impact upon the processing capacities of the plant.8industrial water13 and a biological line to treat household as well as industrial water14.The plant generates daily 500 m3 of mud which is stored locally and it is serviced by anetwork of over 35 km of pipes. The history of the FIC consortium is best presentedin two phases. The first phase started in the late 1950s (as the unrest concerningexcessive water pollution begun to mount within the valley) and it ranged until 1984(when the plant was placed under custody by the local court).The second phases

13

started in the mid-1980s and it ranged until the present days. While much of theinvestment for the plant was undertaken in the first phase, it was in the second one thatFIC truly played its strategic and catalytic role in the district.The growth of leather manufacturing in the industrial district of Arzignano wasvery rapid over much of the 1950s and it resulted in a spectacular increase in waterpollution. At the time, agriculture was still a significant component of the local economyand the protests of the irrigation consortium of the valley still possessed a significantpolitical weight. In order to reduce such unrest, the township of Arzignano had alreadyput forward in 1961 the proposal for a new general-purpose sewage system. The planwas however denied the necessary permits by the regional government because of itstechnical deficiencies. The proposal of a dedicated processing plant was also nurturedand brought forward almost in entire autonomy by the local government with the similarpurpose of reducing public unrest. A preliminary pilot study of the local rivers wasinitiated in 1967 and in 1971 the project for the Montorso treatment plant was finalised.The scale of the project proved immediately beyond the means of the townshipand the FIC consortium (grouping 3 neighbouring townships) was thereforeestablished. From an administrative point of view the transition had little significancesince the leadership was retained by the Mayor of Arzignano. It however sanctioned amore active participation by the private producers of the district who were granted.

14

the right to nominate 50% of the consortium managing board. In exchange, they agreedto comply to the regulations put forward by the consortium aswell as to bear 30% ofthe entire project cost. Over the second half of the 70s, theplant was realised at a costof nearly 140 Lit. billion (in 1996 constant prices, equivalent to over 80 USD million).Around 60% of the entire investment was born through public grants available for suchlarge-scale infrastructure investment. Private contributions amounted to little over 20%13 The chemical line processes daily over 24,000 m3 of water extracting more than 3,500 kilograms ofsulphur compounds and little less than 2,500 kilograms of chrome.14 The biological line processes over 30,000 m3 of water.9of the entire endeavour while the consortium itself (i.e. local government) contributed forthe remaining 20%. The divergence between the initial decision and the privatecontributions effectively put forward is explained by the fact that the final lot of theproject (realised between 1980 and 1983) was significantly larger than initiallyenvisaged. By 1978, the first processing lines of the plant were inaugurated andindustrial water started being processed. Over this period the treatment plant failed tosolve the pollution problem but the protest from the farmers was kept under controlby the promise of more effective treatment lines to be realised. In summer 1983, as thetreatment plant was terminated, protest fiercely resumed and it peaked in March 1984as the local court placed the plant under custody, effectively leading to a shut-down of

15

leather manufacturing in the Chiampo valley. Faced with such a radical challenge, thelocal leather manufacturers had to choose whether to relocateproduction or to tackleits environmental impact more seriously.The FIC consortium (certainly thanks to the dynamism and vision of itspresident) played upon the latent fear of the local leather manufacturers radically redesigningits role within the district and earning broader managerial legitimacy in thelocal economy. Apparently, the sole policy instrument used toachieve such a resultwas a rapid increase in the price of processing effluent water characterised by a higherthan average concentration of pollutants. This move convincedthe local enterpriseseither to adopt adequate technology to process the toxic compounds (such as thecreation of in-house recycling facilities) or, alternatively,to shift to productiontechnologies which made a less intensive use of these compounds. The impact ofsuch a move was that, within a relatively short period of time, the level of pollution wascut down to a sustainable level.At a closer scrutiny, the enforcement of the policies identified by theconsortium was not quite as simple as it might appear. The reader needs to bereminded that the local entrepreneurs continued exercising a great deal of control uponthe consortium and its pricing policies for much of the Eighties15. The FIC presidenthad therefore little hope to implement ‘painful’ rate increases without a sufficiently large15 In late 1986, the regional government passed a law prohibiting private participation to the

16

management board of public institutions dealing in waste management. As a result, the peculiarinstitutional set-up which characterised the FIC consortium had to be abandoned from 1987 onwards.The reader needs to be reminded, however, that the Arzignano entrepreneurs (once again under theleadership of Trevisan who had however abandoned its positionas Mayor of Arzignano) largely regainedmuch of such control after 1991 as they collectively (i.e. through an enterprise called Intesa ofwhich they were all share-holders) won the tender to run the facility at Montorso.10consensus within the managing board. In such a task he was certainly supported by thecontinuing pressure placed upon the consortium by the public opinion and by the localcourts. An element which needs however to be emphasised is that the entrepreneurssitting on the board of the consortium were given the opportunity to learn how theirindividual (and otherwise largely un-coordinated) decisions had a cumulative impactupon the local environments and therefore they gained collective responsibility vis-àvisthe public opinion.The establishment of a consensus within the managing board appears as anecessary but not sufficient element behind the reduction of water pollution. Theconsortium also played a key role a) in identifying the technology required to reduce theenvironmental impact of leather-manufacturing and b) in providing further economicincentives to implement such technology. Both such features emerge visibly from anaccount of how the problem of excessive water salinity was tackled after 198516. As

17

water de-salinisation at the Montorso facility appeared from the start excessivelyexpensive, FIC embarked upon the search for alternative technological solution to helpthe leather manufacturers to “separate” untreated skins from salt. Thanks to thepresence within the area of numerous machine manufacturers, numerous solutionswere tested and the most effective technology rapidly emerged. The consortium didnot, however, stop at this level. It also identified a) a potential purchaser for the salt thusaccumulated within the producers’ premises, b) the site to store the staggeringamounts of salt building up daily in the district and c) the means to collect and transportit. After a short time, it emerged that salt re-cycling was apromising business area andthe entire service was spun off to a private firm.At a closer scrutiny, the consortium does not appear to have played a ‘dirigist’role but rather to have catalysed the establishment of a consensus within thedistrict. Such a role was gained thanks to the dedication, vision, and liaison capacitiesof the president of FIC and to the public pressure constantlyexercise upon such aninstitution. It would however be incorrect to believe that such a mechanism was easilyreplicated under all circumstances. In the early 1990s, as the most pressingenvironmental emergencies were been addressed, the consortiumattempted to tacklea more latent (but potentially very explosive) issue, namely that of odour. The problem16 Untreated leather is commonly stored under salt to reduce its humidity and therefore to prevent itsmaceration. Traditionally, such salt had to be washed away from the skins prior to their treatment and

18

therefore it all ended up dissolved in the effluent water. Excessive water salinity proved to be one of thetarget of farmers’ unrest as it made the Chiampo river unsuitable for irrigation purposes.11could not be solved through the expensive re-design of the sewage network17 so thatFIC put forward an innovative in-house re-cycling scheme. In principle, the consortiumwould collect the recycled compounds (through a lorry service), and dispose of themwithin the treatment plant at Montorso. A largely unexpected consequence of such ascheme was however that FIC could monitor its clients’ leather production to an extentthat was previously impossible. The fear that such confidential data could becomepublic (and therefore available to competitors as well as to all public institution) spreadamong the local producers and it effectively brought the project to a sudden stop.5 A COMPARISON OF THE TWO INITIATIVESClear similarities emerge from a comparison of the history ofthe two effluenttreatment plants. An initial caveat is however in order and the reader needs to bereminded that the Arzignano facility is not only significantly larger than is counterpart inNove but it is also technically different in the sense that the sewage pipeline networkoperated by FIC is entirely missing in Nove. As a result of these two features, theMontorso plant is significantly better sheltered from privatecompetition than the oneowned by CADA. In the late 90s, as the eco-business is growing larger and morecompetitive, such difference is gaining greater importance and it is pressurising CADAmuch more than FIC.

19

For a start, it appears that the pressure directly exercised by public opinionas a result of their concern with increasing pollution is neither a necessary nor asufficient element to trigger a collective response within anSME cluster. In the case ofNove, there is remarkably little evidence of public unrest and protest (surely related tothe relatively minimal environmental impact of artisan production). In the case ofArzignano, the public opinion could be kept under control formore than a decade a)because of the importance of the “polluting” industry within the local economy and b)because of the tendency of the local policy makers to trust the promises of theproducers themselves or of their representatives (concerning their determination tosolve the problem through long-term projects). Quite on the contrary, the largely17 From a technical point of view, the solution consists of splitting up the network for the acidcompounds (used for leather processing) and for the basic ones (used to wash up untreated skins).Such a technical solution is relatively inexpensive if it is implemented from he very beginning andtherefore introduced at the planning stage in the definition of the industrial water network. It proves to beprohibitively expensive is such network is already in place, as in the case of Arzignano.12autonomous role of the courts and of the environment protection agency(enforcing environment protection legislation) acted as the “external” trigger whichturned a latent issue into a pressing problem for the individual enterprises.The transformation of the problems experienced by the individual entrepreneurs

20

into a collective challenge to the local industry was in both districts the result of afurther element, namely the lack of viable solutions within the reach of theentrepreneurs. The lack of in-house water treatment facilities which were suited to theneeds of SMEs has already been emphasised in section 3 and 4.The case of Novealso testifies to the initial reluctance of the private sector to enter into the watertreatment business. Such reluctance was the outcome of the severe uncertaintysurrounding not only the viability of the technological solutions but also the capacity ofthe polluting enterprises to undertake the necessary internalrestructuring as to reducethe toxicity of their processes. In both cases, however, awareness concerning thechallenge collectively faced was achieved only as a the result of the directinvolvement of the local institutions (the artisans’ association in the case of CADAand the township administration in the case of FIC). Such an affinity needs to be relatedto the significant costs to be borne to put forward credible policies to address theproblem.A further similarity between the two case studies is the tendency to start thecollective response with a markedly political initiative essentially aimed at buying time.Time is required a) to build up a consensus over the most suitable long-term strategyamong the members of the consortium (including the need to bear part of thenecessary investment), b) to win the pledge for much-needed public grants, and c) toidentify a suitable site for the recycling plant. The opportunity open to CADA to purchase

21

treatment capacities from external providers was related to its initially low number ofassociates and to the modest environmental impact of their productive activities. Suchan option was therefore not available to FIC.After the realisation of the treatment plant, the fate of FICand that of CADAfollowed markedly different paths. While FIC earned itself a central role triggeringstructural change within the cluster, such an option was not offered to CADA as theartisans’ association of Vicenza envisaged the consortium as an instrument to broadenthe provision of services to its members rather than as the forum to build a new type ofpartnership with such entrepreneurs. Section 4 already emphasised that broadeningthe mission of FIC cannot be envisaged as an act of dirigismeby its president but13rather as the outcome of his efforts to build up an adequate consensus within themanaging board. More to the point, FIC emerged as the centre of ‘district-widegovernance’ because 1) it facilitated the perception of a district-wide problem, 2) itenabled the local producers to relate collective challenges to their individual ways ofdoing business, 3) it provided the incentive for the local machinery producers to furthercustomise their technologies, 4) it dispersed ‘best practices’ within the district, 5) itpioneered innovative entrepreneurial activities (until private providers stepped in), and 6)it liasoned with the local policy-makers and with the public opinion.In the last analysis there is no doubt that both CADA and FICacted as valuable

22

templates within their districts. For sure, their financial viability displayed to a range oflocal entrepreneurs the profitability of customising waste processing plants to theneeds of SMEs. A further facilitating element is that the promotional initiativesundertaken by both consortia in the early 1980s gave rise to much greaterenvironmental awareness within the districts which could subsequently be seized uponby private operators. In this sense, the two consortia acted as important pathbreakers.Evidence concerning institutional impact is much less clear-cut. Surely, thetwo consortia did not share a similar fate. CADA was sponsored by an institution‘external’ to the district (the provincial branch of the artisans’ association). At a clusterlevel it did not have any major institutional impact. In terms of the capacity of theartisans’ association to better respond to the needs of its members,it certainlyconfirmed the viability a of modus operandi which had however already been amplytested (through export and credit consortia). FIC has been onthe contrary the first caseof a public-private partnership in Arzignano. Attempts to broaden its mission wereinitially largely successful (as when it became involved in selling chemical compoundsrecycled from processed water) but they were then rocked by the resistance of thedistrict producers (the failure of the odour-abatement project has already beendescribed). However, attempts to revive the partnership (as in the case of the project tocreate a service centre for the leather industry) never won the support of the districtproducer.

23

6 CONCLUSIONThe comparison of the two institutional initiatives describedin the paperdiscloses some interesting lessons for SME clusters in developing countries. By far the14most valuable insight is that waste treatment facilities are ideal targets for acollective action within clusters. Their significant cost andindivisibility imply thataddressing the problem of environmental impact is well beyondthe means of theindividual entrepreneur. Such collective involvement is equally needed in order toeffectively confront the public opinion and the local policy makers: the creation of aconsortium and even more the commitment of private financial resources represent theprice to be paid to earn public recognition and legitimacy. The importance of suchlegitimacy in earning much needed time should not be underscored.Collective action never appears to be the result of the sum of individualproblems: a catalytic event is in other words needed to transform a group ofautonomous and competing entrepreneurs into a constituency within which cooperationcan be established. Such event is invariably related to the bottom line of the enterprise.In the two case studies reported, public pressure was found to be neither a necessarynor sufficient pre-condition, while fines were. When fines were levied, the financialviability of the majority of the cluster enterprises was immediately challenged. Suchchallenge constituted the common element which pushed individual entrepreneurs to

24

realise the similarity among their fates. In needs however tobe mentioned that thestrategy of dodging the legislation may remain within the horizon of many SME owner.The value of the two institutional solution described in thispaper resides in the fact thatthis second option was effectively ruled out as a result of the provision to theentrepreneurs of an affordable solution to their problems.The cost of realising a waste treatment plant appears as a formidable obstacleto a collective action within the cluster. Start up costs arehigh a) because of publicresistance against the localisation of the treatment and storage facilities, b) because ofthe infrastructural investment, c) because of the structural adjustment that the firmsinvariably need to undertake to “standardise” the characteristics of their effluents.Relatively to point a) its seems that the capacities of the clusters producers as a groupare insufficient and they need to be supported by a public initiative. With respect to pointc) investment by the individual entrepreneurs appear on the contrary as the mostadequate measure for them to “bind” themselves to the projectand to demonstratetheir own motivations. Public support therefore appears necessary with respect to pointa) and wholly counterproductive with respect to point c). Thedistribution of theinfrastructural costs therefore appears as a key determinant of the success of theentire collective action. Over-reliance upon private funding can put the achievement of15an optimal scale plant in serious jeopardy with deep consequences upon its long term

25

viability. Over-reliance upon public funding marginalises theproducers and it reducestheir incentive to participate in the decisions of the managing board.In a cluster characterised by a relatively poor institutionalenvironment, theimplementation of a valid solution to the environmental challenge appears as aformidable source of legitimisation for the agency which successfully collaborates withthe group of producers. The initiative has therefore the opportunity to broaden itsmission and to become the centre of cluster-wide strategic decision-taking andthe engine for structural change. The need to retain private participation to theinitiative should discourage a ‘dirigist’ approach. Preference should therefore be grantedto consensus-strengthening strategies. The last point that needs to be emphasised isthat successfully tackling an environmental challenge is a necessary but not asufficient ingredient of the attempt to enrich the institutional environment of the cluster,as abundantly indicated by the experience of FIC.

ObjectiveObjective:· The principal objective of waste water treatment is generally to allow human and industrial effluents to be disposed off without danger to human health or unacceptable damage to the natural environment

POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS2.1 Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs)Objectives

26

The Ministry has undertaken a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for enabling the small scaleindustries (SSI) to set-up Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETP) in the country. The SSIs arepolluting the environment through their effluents but some ofthem are unable to afford installation ofpollution control equipment. In order to encourage use of newtechnologies for CETPs for existingSSI clusters of units a scheme for financial assistance has been formulated. This promotional schemeis being instituted and will be implemented during the Tenth Five Year Plan.Criteria for Consideration for Assistancei) CETPs in industrial estates or in a cluster of Small ScaleIndustrial units are encouraged.ii) Central Assistance will be available only for clusters ofSSIs.iii) Projects for assistance will be prioritised on the basisof :– Toxicity of pollutants– Pollution load being generated and to be treated; and– Number of units coverediv) The CETPs are to be set up and managed by the State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation(by whatever name known) or through an appropriate institution including a cooperativebody of the concerned units as may be decided by the State Governments/SPCBsconcerned.v) The project should be self-supporting for repayment of theloan and meeting operationand maintenance costs.vi) The project must formulate adequate institutional arrangements for cost sharing, recoveryof dues and management and ensure observance of prescribed standards.vii) The scheme must have the technical recommendation of theState Pollution ControlBoards.

27

viii) The CETP project should have the conveyance system fromthe individual units to theCETP.ix) Sludge characteristics (i.e. hazardous Vs. non-hazardous)from the primary and secondarytreatment of the CETP should be estimated. Therefore, the CETP should have a sludgemanagement plan which should be prepared based on the sludge characterisation and bedocumented in the feasibility report of the CETP project.x) Possibility of recycling/reusing the treated effluent fromthe CETPs by the memberunits should be explored and be documented in the feasibilityreport of the CETP project.xi) An environmental management and monitoring plan/programmeto be prepared for theCETP and be documented in the feasibility report of the CETP project.xii) A legal agreement between the CETP Co. and its member units to be executed bereflected in the feasibility report of the CETP project.16 _xiii) The cost recovery formula developed for the CETP project should be ratified by allmembers and be documented in the feasibility report of the CETP project.xiv) Necessary clearance be obtained from the concerned StatePollution Control Board fordischarging the treated effluent and be reflected in the feasibility report of the CETPproject.xv) All hazardous waste facilities associated with these CETPs should obtain clearancefrom the concerned State Pollution Control Board and be documented in the feasibilityreport of the CETP project.Pattern of Financial Assistance:- State subsidy : 25% of the total project cost;- Central subsidy : 25% of the total project cost;

28

- Entrepreneurs contribution : 20% of the total project cost;- Loan from financial institutions - 30% of the total projectcost.( e.g. IDBI, ICICI or any other nationalised Banks, State Industrial Financial Corporationetc.)– If the CETP Co. does not desire to have loans from financial institutions/Banks they mayaugment the same out of their own resources/contributions, i.e. the entrepreneurs would thencontribute 50% of the project cost.– Central assistance upto 25% of the total cost of the CETP would be provided as a grant to theCommon Effluent Treatment Plant(s) on the condition that a matching grant is sanctioned andreleased by the State Government. The CETP Company should meet the remaining cost byequity contribution by the industries and loans from financial institutions.– Central assistance will be provided only for the capital costs. No assistance will be providedfor recurring costs. The assistance will be released in four equal installments. The first installmentof 25% of the assistance will be released when a body has been identified for the purpose ofimplementing the project, financial arrangements have been tied up, institutional arrangementshave been finalised, consent has been obtained from the StatePollution Control Board andState Government has committed its contribution.– The second installment of 25 per cent and the third installment of 25 per cent will be releasedafter utilisation of the previous money released and adequateprogress of work subject torelease of their proportionate shares by the State Governments.– The fourth and the last installments will be released only when utilisation certificates for the

29

previous installments have been submitted and duly verified by the State Pollution ControlBoards.Procedure for Sanction of AssistanceThe feasibility study of the Project proposal has to be undertaken by a well reputed organization.The concerned State Pollution Control Board’s consent is sufficient for the company to approachthe lDBI/any other financial institutions for obtaining the loan component for CETP. The companywould obtain the commitment from lDBI/financial institution for the loan component and the company/financial institution would approach the State Government/State Board for the release of the State’sshare into the company’s book account. Based on the release of the State Government, the CentralGovernment would release its matching share after its approval of Appraisal Committee in the Ministry17 _and the necessary financial assistance would be released to the project proponent through the StatePollution Control Board/ Pollution Control Committees.2.2 Customs Duty Exemption for Import of CNG/LPG kits and parts thereofAccording to the Ministry of Finance notification No. 21/2002. dated 01.03.2002, exemptionfrom the custom duty is provided for the following goods:1. Kits required for the conversion of motor spirit or dieseldriven vehicles into CNG drivenor LPG driven or Propane driven vehicles.2. Parts of the kits specified at (1) above.The duty exemption is provided at the rate of 5% advalorem and the Ministry of Environment& Forests has been empowered to issue such certificate for the organizations/institutions involved inthe activities as specified in 1 & 2.Applicability CriteriaIn order to avail of the Custom duty exemption, the interested company has to apply to the

30

Director, Pollution Control Division in the Ministry. The application should contain the following;i) The summary sheet of all the goods/parts to be imported:ii) An undertaking by the company in non-judicial stamp paperin the prescribed format:iii) The copy of the invoice sent by the importer company:iv) A copy of the type approval certificate of the parts to be imported;v) Necessary approval from Automakers Research Association India (ARAI)/ VehicleResearch Development Establishment (VRDE) wherever required.The application has to be sent at least 15 days in advance before the arrival of the goods.18 _UNDERTAKINGThis is to certify that the goods being imported against proforma invoice No.___________ dated___________ for (Value) from M/s.___________ (Name & Address of Supplier) ,are required for pollution control. The goods are kits/parts for LPG driven vehicles. They would beused for conversion of diesel/petrol driven vehicles into LPG/CNG/Propane mode/dual mode and thebenefit obtained from the concessional custom duty would be passed on to actual usual/consumer ofthe kits/parts.We, the importers, shall maintain a log book in this regard showing the name, address along withphone no. of the consumer/dealer to whom these kits are suplied/sold, actual imported cost of kits/parts, custom duty paid proforma invoice No. and selling price of the kits/parts. In case the kits aresold to dealer, who subsequently sells to consumer/user, a log book containing the details as mentionedabove would be maintained separately by the dealer also. An undertaking shall be taken by importerfrom the dealer in this regard. These log books of importer as well as dealer shall be shown to theMOEF/Government officials, as and when required.

31

For (Name of Importer Company)Authorized Signatory19 _2.3 Industrial Pollution Abatement through Preventive StrategyThe scheme is an amalgamation of the on-going three schemes viz. Environmental Audit,Adoption of Clean Technologies in Small Scale Industries and Environmental Statistics and Mapping,which have been continuing since 8th Five Year Plan.The Policy Statement for Abatement of Pollution lays emphasison preventive aspects ofpollution abatement and promotion of technological inputs to reduce industrial pollution. It also statesthat authoritative statistical data on the environment is vital for decision-making. The scheme on“Industrial Pollution Abatement through Preventive Strategy” accordingly, covers important componentsof environmental audit, waste minimization/cleaner productionand environmental management systems.The scheme will be implemented through the Central and State Pollution Control Boards,expert institutions and other concerned agencies to seek viable solutions to the pollution problemswith specific reference to small and medium scale industrial sectors. The proposals on the thematicsubjects can be sent to Ministry for financial assistance.2.4 Waste MinimizationWaste Minimization is an appropriate strategy to address the problems of industrial pollution.The objective of the scheme is to assist the small and mediumscale industries in adoption of cleanerproduction practices. Under the grant-in-aid scheme Industrial Pollution Abatement through PreventiveStrategies, a component of “Waste Minimization in Small ScaleIndustries” is being implementedthrough National Productivity Council and other agencies. So far 118 Waste Minimization Circles

32

have been established in 41 sectors in 17 geographic locations through out the country. The activitiesundertaken under this include the following:_ Establishing and running Waste Minimization Circles in clusters of Small Scale Industries._ Capacity building in the area of Waste Minimization/CleanerProduction through trainingand awareness programmes._ Waste Minimization demonstration studies in selected industrial sectors._ Preparation of sector specific technical manuals on waste minimization._ Preparation of compendium of success stories on cleaner production/waste minimization.2.5 Clean TechnologyAnother grant-in-aid scheme on “Clean Technology” is in operation in the Ministry since 1994.The objectives of the scheme are as follows:(i) To develop and promote programmes for clean technologies(ii) To develop tools and techniques for pollution prevention(iii) To formulate strategies and programmes in sustainable development.Since inception of the scheme, a number of studies have been undertaken through IITs, CSIR,NPC and other agencies. These studies include Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in key industrialsectors, Carrying Capacity(CC) studies in selected geographical regions and pollution preventionstudies in important industries.2.6 Assistance for Abatement of PollutionObjectivesThe scheme meets the need to strengthen the Central PollutionControl Board and StatePollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees for enforcing the statutory provisions for20 _taking up pollution abatement measures. Grants are being provided to the State Pollution Control

33

Boards/UT Pollution Control Committees, Environment Departments, Central/State ResearchInstitutions and other government agencies/organizations withthe aim of strengthening their technicalcapabilities to achieve the objectives of the Policy Statement.Pattern of AssistanceAppropriate equipment for emerging concerns will be provided to all States/Union TerritoryPCCs e.g. noise, land, air and water pollution and bio-monitoring facilities. Grants/assistance will alsobe given for studies related to environmental management in the critically polluted areas and riverstretches, urban areas; health related studies including contamination of ground water from chemicals;establish a computerized database; and upgrading the administrative and scientific capabilities of thescientists through training in CSIR, IIT and Institute of Management within the country.Mode of ApplicationThe complete application indicating the requirements, list ofequipments, if any, along with theobjectives, justification, budgets and in case of short studies the need for undertaking such studies aswell as utilization of output towards abatement of pollution may be sent to the Director (CP), Ministryof Environment and Forests, New Delhi 110003.

ProcessIntroductionAll acid plants produce some form of liquid effluent either from the process such as weak acid from a gas cleaning system, wash down water, accidental spills, boiler blow down,cooling water blow down, precipitation collected in a containment area, etc.  Some effluents are not treated prior to release to the environment while others must be treat extensively to remove contaminants before it can be safely discharged.

34

The purpose of an effluent treatment system is to treat the sulphuric acid plant effluents to generate a solids stream containing the impurities in the effluent and a liquid streamthat is suitable for discharge to the environment or reuse elsewhere in the process.  The level and nature of the impurities in the weak acid varies considerably from plant toplant and as a result so does the treatment methods employed.  In general, all effluent treatment methods employ the following steps: Precipitation of impuritiesseparation of solids from liquidpH adjustmentPrecipitation of ImpuritiesImpurities are generally metals which can be removed from solution by precipitation.  Precipitation can take place in low pH solutions (i.e. arsenic) or in high pH solutions (zinc, lead, copper, etc.).  The choice of precipitation methods is based on the solubility of the salt in solution, the subsequent disposal method and/or further processing of the salt.  Impurities are generally precipitated as hydroxides, sulphides, carbonates or chlorides with hydroxides being by far the most common.Solids/Liquid SeparationOnce the impurities are precipitated from the solution they are separated from the solution so they can be disposed of orsent for further processing and treatment.   The method used for solids/liquid separation will depend on the nature of thesolids.  Initial de-watering of the stream can be done in a clarifier followed by filtration.  In some cases the stream is suitable for direct filtration to remove the solids.  Filtration may require the use of a filter aid to achieve thedesired removal efficiency.pH AdjustmentDuring the processing of the waste stream the pH of the solution may be adjusted many times.  The final pH of the solution may not be in the range required for disposal of reuse.  As such one final adjustment of the pH may be required.

35

NeutralizationNeutralization is the simplest way to treat a weak acid effluent.  As the pH of the solution increases, the solubility of various impurities changes causing them to precipitate from solution.Sulphuric acid can be neutralized by the addition of calcium hydroxide (lime) to form calcium sulphate or gypsum accordingto the following reaction: H2SO4 + Ca(OH) 2 => CaSO4·2H2OCalcium hydroxide is generally the least expensive and simplest to use neutralizing agent available for treatment ofan acidic effluent.Metal impurities will react to for metal hydroxides.

Impurity Form in Acidic Solution Metal Hydroxide

Arsenic H3AsO4 Ca3(AsO4)2

          OxidationWhere heavy metals remain in the stream after hydroxide precipitation, the addition of a chemical oxidant may be helpful to further enhance the removal of the metals.  In general, those metals with many oxidation states (i.e. iron, manganese, etc.) will precipitate more readily if they are intheir highest oxidation state.  The use of hydrogen peroxide is effective in oxidizing metals to their higher oxidation state.Process Flowchart of ETP (Effluent Treatment Plant) of TextileEffluent Transfer Plant is the essential part of a Textile Industry. As the consciousness about environment has been drastically increased; the research, talks about ETP also been increased.ETP Plant consists of some basic steps. From the very beginning of Water accumulating to the final purified water has some processing procedures. These are –Primary FiltrationCooling & Mixing

36

Neutralization by Acid or Alkali DozingChemical Co-agulationSetting & Separation of SludgeSludge PitFiltrationDischarge To DrainThis is very basic steps of Effluent Transfer Plant. Here i am going to give you are basic concept of each process steps of ETP.Primary Filtration: Primary Filtration is the very first stepof this process where the effluents are being filtered by theprimary layer. In this step some bigger substitutes and materials of textiles are filtered.Cooling & Mixing: In this step the dirty water with other wasted materials are being cooled so that these can be processed at later step.

Neutralized By Acid or Alkali Dozing: Wasted effluents shouldbe neutralized as it will be taken for Chemical treatment. While you apply chemicals it might produce several reactions on sludge, water and materials. So, its better to neutralize all of the effluents and its adjacent materials.Chemical Co-Agulation: In this process of ETP; all of the chemicals is applied for coagulation.Setting & Separation of Sludge: After the Chemical reaction; effluents are separated from the sludge and wasted sludge aretaken out from another pipe or lines.Sludge Pit: Sludge Pit is one kind of solid Sludge that is formed after the separation from the effluent itself.Filtration: Sludge pit is easy to filter as it is in solid formed from the previous step.

Discharge To Drain: There are several Drains are settled in order to taken out all of thesludge and dirty pit from this plant.

Effluent Treatment Plant Share: We offer Effluent Treatment Plant that is accurately

37

formulated and environment friendly. Used in various factories, the treatment plant helps in solving the environment pollution problem without exposing the waste material to the environment. Easy to operate and low in maintenance, the range is extensively used in chemical, food and beverage, oil and petrochemical industries. Custom designed solutions are also provided as required by the client.

Effluent / Sewage Treatment PlantWe also design effluent treatment and sewage treatment plants and water pollution control related equipments. We are designing and manufacturing fixed and floating aerators, clarifier, clariflocculations, thickners, agitators, mixers, stirrers, flocculators, oil skimmers, mechanised bar screen etc.for sewage treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant.

As the company strongly believes inR & D and quality assurance, it hasgone for aerators testing facility right the inception of thecompany's formation. Under quality assurance plan, each and every prototype aerators are tested for oxygen transfer as per american standard before placing in the market and each and every aerator, which is manufactured, is shop assembled and run for two hours in testing facility before dispatch. Being environmentalist "environ" has specially developed and manufactured the aerators even of 1

38

hp rating andcentre drive clarifier mechanism upto 2m diameter and delivered within one week specially to small organizations.

The effluent treatment plants are designed to treat the effluent coming from different areas of the plant. The treatment of different effluents varies with the type of effluent. Water effluent treatment systems are designed to treat effluent mainly containing oily effluent. The water from the transformer area, turbine building,workshop etc. , is collected in common collection sump from where water is pumped through the plate interceptor.

With the increase in the number industries, there is an increment of compounds of heavy metals and synthesized organic compounds into water causing its pollution. It is adding some 10,000 new organic compounds each year. Our company holds great reputation in the market as a manufacturer, supplier,and exporter of flawless effluent treatment plants (ETP). We have over a decade of experience in making and exporting effluent watertreatment plants. These etps are based on cutting-edge technology.

Further, with the technological changes in manufacturing process

39

has resulted into more addition of compounds discharge. Conventional waste water treatment process is not efficient to treat the pollutedwater. With this thought in mind, eco-chem laboratories p ltd offers top-quality industrial effluent treatment plants which are highly appreciated by our clients for their effectiveness, easy handling,less maintenance, and affordable prices.

Operation:

Our effluent treatment plant and system is based on the aerobic respiration method; it consists of three stages namely primary treatment, secondary bio-treatment,and tertiary treatment. The effluent water is passed through various processes such as chemical dosing, aeration, and settling. Thefinal treatment filtration cum absorption takes place by filters. Finally, the processed water goes for advance treatment and we get usable water which can be used further for irrigation and other purposes.Send Enquiry

Effluent Treatment Chemicals

40

41

We offer environment friendly and accurately formulated effluent treatment chemicals that are used widely in effluent treatment industry. Further, we also offer a variety of anionic/cationic polymers for industrial process andwastewater treatment. These are reckoned for the following features:

• The polymers vary in functionality • Completely harmless, nonflammableand non-explosive, our range of effluent treatment chemicals can bestored at room temperature. Further, these are good clarifying agents for wastewater of textile mining, pump & paper, steel, metal an

We offer a wide range of industrial effluent treatment plants for application in paint shop, diaries, paper mills, oil refineries, leather industry, glass factories, chemical and processing industries etc. These industrial effluent treatment

42