POLLUTION PREVENTION PAYS - Two Units Show The Way
K. Vijaya Lakshmi and Nancy Galloway

Whatever be its consequences industrialisation has to continue.  And its inevitable by-product pollution will continue  to damage the environment  unless suitable measures are adopted.

Environmental legislation though necessary, has proved to be insufficient to ensure a cleaner environment.  It is all the more necessary that industry take action.

So what does it cost it to clean up?  Apparently, very little in terms  of commitment, as demonstrated by two units in Delhi.   One, the Shriram Foods and Fertilizer Industries (SFFI) is a large unit, with over a 1,000 employees; the other, Indfos Industries, is smaller, with about 400 employees.  The former was jolted into action after an oleum leak from its factory in 1985, whereas the latter’s tryst with TQM (Total Quality Management) and its chief executive’s sensitivity made the changes possible.

Both have restricted investments in pollution treatment to a minimum by taking simple steps to prevent generation of wastes and pollutants.  These range from process changes and innovative “re-cycle and re-use” measures to good house keeping techniques.

After the oleum leak SFFI had to abandon fertiliser production and reduce the volume of the hazardous chlorine gas they handled. It was at this stage that the management  resolved to tighten safety measures and control pollution.  Their strategy included among other things process changes, training employees and image building.

Employees at all levels were trained in safe handling of materials and waste reduction.  One of the first improvements noticed was that the vanaspati plant required fewer floor washes, thanks to checks on leaks.  Consequently the terminal treatment plan had less waste to treat.  Plant managers and floor personnel in the chlor-alkali unit could eliminate effluents by recycling discharges in brine.

Treatment of effluents from each unit before they reach the main plants helps SFFI recover valuable material such as soaps, oils and sodium hypochlorite.  Further, the biological treatment plan is effective only when effluents from the chlor-alkali unit are separated - an indicator that the system in functioning.  After an investment of RS. 36 lakhs in all these measures SFFI now saves about Rs. 36 lakhs per year from the materials recovered and reduced cost of treatment.  Total effluents have been reduced from 1280 kld (kilo litres per day) to 420 kld.

Following these changes employees started energy conservation efforts.  Now, about 67,000 tonnes of coal worth (Rs. 8 crores) is saved each year.  Conservation of resources is now part of the work culture of SFFI; even the number of  fluo-recent lamps being used in the offices has reduced.

According to Assistant General Manager of the Environment Protection and Management of the Environment Protection and Management Division, Mr. Surendra Kumar, employees are no longer guilty of belonging to a company that created a panic but are proud of SFFI’s new image. 

This reputation has earned SFFI the “British Sword Honour” in 1992; and it is currently enjoying its sixth consecutive rebate on water cess on the recommendation of the Central Pollution Control Board.

The change in Indfos industries came about through a different route.

During a meeting in Madras the chief executive of Indfos, Avinder Singh, discovered  that water in and around Madras was so expensive that farmers had stopped farming and were instead selling their water.

Back in his Ghaziabad factory Mr. Singh realised that no one even knew how much water is consumed by their factory; and they manufacture water meters !  Having found out that nearly 488 kld was being consumed, all employees were alerted against water wastages.

Under usual circumstances this would have taken a back seat in lieu of other pressing problems.  But luckily, it concided with the company’s programme on Total Quality Management (TQM), which when combined with Mr. Singh’s enthusiasm worked like magic.

Crucial commitment to water conservations, however, was the involvement of all employees; everybody was encouraged to take initiatives and every initiative was treated with respect.  Every time an initiative was accepted, the person was lauded.  This recognition (neither monetary nor professional) proved to be very effective and soon each person saw the problem as his or her’s - not just Mr. Singh’s.

In the beginning it was just fixing of leaks and reduction in water usage.  Soon ideas began to pour in, leading to rationalisation of pipe sizes (from one inch to half or a quarter inch), and installation of overhead tanks which eliminated the need to turn on the tubewell pump every time water was needed.  This reduced water consumption to one-fourth of what it had been  in the previous month.  And had the factory been in Madras they would have saved more than Rs. 12 lakhs each year since water there costs as much as Rs. 16 per kilo litre.

Following this success, workers devised ways to save water and chemicals in the electroplating unit.  Simple drag out collection systems were installed to collect bath water.  Rinse water began to be reused till the concentration of chemicals in it became high enough to replenish the plating bath.  A small treatment plant costing Rs. 4.6 lakhs has been set up; and the plant manager is confident  that this cost will be recovered in five to six months.

Although their initiatives were triggered off by different stimuli, and though they adopted different approaches, both industries were striving towards the same goal.  It is interesting to note that neither was rapped for pollution or resource depletion in all their years of operation.  But both have demonstrated that a lot can be saved if simple steps are taken.  Industries need not wait for accidents or the CPCB to spur them to such action.  It is evident now that industry itself stands to gain immensely from such initiatives.

Back to Contents