Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SewageTreatmentinClassITowns:
RecommendationsandGuidelines
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Preface
In exercise of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (3) of Section 3 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), the Central Government has
constituted National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) as a planning, financing,
monitoring and coordinating authority for strengthening the collective efforts of the
CentralandStateGovernmentforeffectiveabatementofpollutionandconservationof
the river Ganga. One of the important functions of the NGRBA is to prepare and
implementaGangaRiverBasin:EnvironmentManagementPlan(GRBEMP).
AConsortiumof7IndianInstituteofTechnology(IIT)hasbeengiventheresponsibility
of preparing Ganga River Basin: Environment Management Plan (GRB EMP) by the
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), GOI, New Delhi. Memorandum of
Agreement (MoA) has been signed between 7 IITs (Bombay, Delhi, Guwahati, Kanpur,
Kharagpur,MadrasandRoorkee)andMoEFforthispurposeonJuly6,2010.
This report is one of the many reports prepared by IITs to describe the strategy,
information, methodology, analysis and suggestions and recommendations in
developing Ganga River Basin: Environment Management Plan (GRB EMP). The overall
FrameWorkfordocumentationofGRBEMPandIndexingofReportsispresentedonthe
insidecoverpage.
TherearetwoaspectstothedevelopmentofGRBEMP.Dedicatedpeoplespenthours
discussingconcerns,issuesandpotentialsolutionstoproblems.Thisdedicationleadsto
the preparation of reports that hope to articulate the outcome of the dialog in a way
that is useful. Many people contributed to the preparation of this report directly or
indirectly.Thisreportisthereforetrulyacollectiveeffortthatreflectsthecooperationof
many, particularly those who are members of the IIT Team. Lists of persons who are
membersoftheconcernedthematicgroupsandthosewhohavetakenleadinpreparing
thisreportaregivenonthereverseside.
DrVinodTare
ProfessorandCoordinator
DevelopmentofGRBEMP
IITKanpur
2|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
TheTeam
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19 .
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
AAKazmi,IITRoorkee
AKGupta,IITKharagpur
AKMittal,IITDelhi
AKNema,IITDelhi
AjayKalmhad,IITGuwahati
AnirbanGupta,BESUShibpur
ArunKumar,IITDelhi
GJChakrapani,IITRoorkkee
GazalaHabib,IITDelhi
HimanshuJoshi,IITRoorkee
InduMehrotra,IITRoorkee
IMMishra,IITRoorkee
LigyPhilip,IITMadras
MMGhangrekar,IITKharagpur
MukeshDoble,IITBombay
PKSingh,ITBHU
PurnenduBose,IITKanpur
RRaviKrishna,IITMadras
RakeshKumar,NEERINagpur
SMShivnagendra,IITMadras
SaumyenGuha,IITKanpur
ShyamRAsolekar,IITBombay
SudhaGoel,IITKharagpur
SuparnaMukherjee,IITBombay
TRSreekrishanan,IITDelhi
VinodTare,IITKanpur
VivekKumar,IITRoorkee
kazmifce@iitr.ernet.in
akgupta18@rediffmail.com,akgupta@iitkgp.ac.in
akmittal@civil.iitd.ernet.in
aknema@gmail.com
kajay@iitg.ernet.in
guptaanirban@hotmail.com
arunku@civil.iitd.ac.in
gjcurfes@iitr.ernet.in
gazalahabib@gmail.com
himanshujoshi58@gmail.com
indumfce@iitr.ernet.in
imishfch@iitr.ernet.in
ligy@iitm.ac.in
ghangrekar@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
mukeshd@iitm.ac.in
dr_pksingh1@rediffmail.com
pbose@iitk.ac.in
rrk@iitm.ac.in
r_kumar@neeri.res.in
snagendra@iitm.ac.in
sguha@iitk.ac.in
asolekar@iitb.ac.in
sudhagoel@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
mitras@iitb.ac.in
sree@dbeb.iitd.ac.in
vinod@iitk.ac.in
vivekfpt@iitr.ernet.in
LeadPersons
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
VinodTare,IITKanpur
LigyPhilip,IITMadras
AAKazmi,IITRoorkee
PurnenduBose,IITKanpur
ArvindKNema,IITDelhi
AtulMittal,IITDelhi
ArunKumar,IITDelhi
InduMehrotra,IITRoorkee
SubrataHait,IITKanpur
3|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Contents
SNo.
PageNo.
1
General
5
2
SelectionofAppropriateSewageTreatmentTechnology
5
3
TreatmentChain
6
4
CostofTreatmentandLandRequirement
7
5
DecisionMatrix..
7
6
SludgeManagement..
13
7
FlowMeasurement.
13
8
BioassayTest
13
9
References
16
AppendixI.ExhibitsonOptionsforSecondaryTreatment 17
4|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
1. General
Sewage is a major point source of pollution. The target of Nirmal Dhara i.e. unpolluted
flowcanbeachievedifdischargeofpollutantsintheriverchanneliscompletelystopped.
Also,sewagecanbeviewedasasourceofwaterthatcanbeusedforvariousbeneficialuses
includinggroundwaterrechargethroughsurfacestorageoftreatedwaterand/orrain/flood
waterinanunlinedreservoir.ThismayalsohelpachievingAviralDhara.
Inordertoreducesubstantialexpenditureonlongdistanceconveyanceofsewageaswellas
treated water for recycling, decentralized treatment of sewage is advisable. As a good
practice,manysmallsewagetreatmentplants(STP)shouldbebuiltratherthanafewofvery
largecapacity.Allnewdevelopmentsmustbuildinwaterrecyclingandzeroliquiddischarge
systems. Fresh water intake should be restricted only to direct humancontact beneficial
uses of water. For all other uses properly treated sewage/wastewater should be used
wherever sufficient quantity of sewage is available as source water for such purposes. All
newcommunitysanitationsystemsmustadoptrecyclingoftreatedwaterforflushingand
completely isolate fecal matter until it is converted into safe and usable organic manure.
The concept of decentralized treatment systems and water/wastewater management will
becoveredindetailinsubsequentreports.
2. SelectionofAppropriateSewageTreatmentTechnology
Item4.5.2inGuidelinesforthePreparationofUrbanRiverManagementPlan(URMP)forall
Class I Towns in Ganga River Basin (Report No. 002_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_01) concerns with
sewage treatment plant. One of the most challenging aspects of a sustainable sewage
treatmentsystem(eithercentralizedordecentralized)designistheanalysisandselectionof
the treatment processes and technologies capable of meeting the requirements. The
processistobeselectedbasedonrequiredqualityoftreatedwater.Whiletreatmentcosts
areimportant,otherfactorsshouldalsobegivendueconsideration.Forinstance,effluent
quality,processcomplexity,processreliability,environmentalissuesandlandrequirements
shouldbeevaluatedandweightedagainstcostconsiderations.Importantconsiderationsfor
selectionofsewagetreatmentprocessesaregiveninTable1.
Table1:SewageTreatmentProcessSelectionConsiderations
Consideration
QualityofTreatedSewage
Powerrequirement
Landrequired
CapitalCostofPlant
Operation&Maintenancecosts
Maintenancerequirement
Operatorattention
Reliability
ResourceRecovery
LoadFluctuations
5|P a g e
Goal
Productionoftreatedwaterofstipulatedqualitywithoutinterruption
Reduceenergyconsumption
Minimizelandrequirement
Optimumutilizationofcapital
Lowerrecurringexpenditure
Simpleandreliable
Easytounderstandprocedures
Consistentdeliveryoftreatedsewage
Productionofqualitywaterandmanure
Withstandvariationsinorganicandhydraulicloads
ReportCode::003_GBP_IIT_EQ
QP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
3. Trreatmen
ntChain
n
Allsewagetreatmentplants shouldfollo
owaprocesschaindeependingup
ponthetecchnology
eatmentisttobedonee inthreesttagesas
chosen andthetreatmentcaapacity.Inggeneral,tre
pertheflowsheetpresentedinFigure1..
Figure
e1: Proce
essChainfo
orSewageTTreatment
Specificcationsandtreatmentobjectivesaateachstaggeoftreatm
mentareasfollows.
StageI PreliminaryyTreatmentt:
5mmbarraacks(before
epumping)
a)ThreeeStageScreeening:25
12
2mmbarraacks
5mmmesh(<2mmme
eshforMem
mbraneBioReactor,M
MBR)
hamberiffo
ollowingun
nitoperationisaerobiccandNorm
malGritChaamberif
b)AeraatedGritCh
followin
ngunitoperationisanaerobic.
nt:
Expecteedeffluentqualityafteerpreliminarytreatmen
Noffloatingmaterialsinclu
udingpolyth
henebags,ssmallpouch
hes,etc.
Propercollectio
onanddisp
posalofscreeeningandgrit.
StageIIIPrimaryan
nd/orSecon
ndaryTreattment:Man
nyoptionsaareavailableforsecon
ndstage
treatmeent.Theseoptionscan
nbegroupeedintofollo
owingthreecategories.
a) Pon
ndBasedSyystemsor
b) Acttivated Slud
dge Processs (ASP) and
d its Modifications or equivalentt systems in
ncluding
butt not limiteed to SBR, UASB follo
owed by ASSP, ASP operated on Extended Aeration
A
mo
ode(EAASP
P),ASPwithBiologicalN
NutrientRe
emoval(ASP
P+BNR),and
dMBBRor
c) MeembraneBio
oReactor(M
MBR)
6|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Expectedeffluentqualityafterprimaryandsecondarytreatment:
BOD<30mg/L
SS<20mg/L
Nitrifiedeffluent
A brief description of various technological options available for secondary treatment are
presented in Appendix I. EAASP, ASP+BNR are considered to be variations of ASP and
producemoreorlesssamequalityeffluent(particularlywhentertiarytreatmentisadopted
after secondary treatment) and have approximately same treatment plant footprint. The
treatment cost is also of the same order and hence are not considered to be distinctly
differentthanASP.
Stage III Tertiary Treatment: Coagulationflocculationsettling followed by filtration and
disinfection is generally recommended. Other processes could be selected on the basis of
landavailability,costconsiderations,O&Mcost,reuseoption,compatibilityissuesincaseof
upgradation of existing plants, etc. However, disinfection operation should invariable be
included.Expectedeffluentqualityaftertertiarytreatment:
BOD<10mg/L
SS<5mg/L
Phosphate<0.5mg/L
MPNoffecalcoliforms<10/100mL
Where sewage flows are low and/or land can be spared without compromising on other
developmentalobjectivesoragriculture,wastestabilizationpondsfollowedbyconstructed
wetlandcanbeadoptedwithoutcoagulationflocculationsettling.
4. CostofTreatmentandLandRequirement
Comprehensive analysis of capital cost, operation and maintenance costs, reinvestment
cost, energy cost and land requirement based on data obtained from various STPs in the
GangariverbasinandelsewhereinIndiahasbeendone.Thisanalysishasbeensummarized
in Figure 2 as linkage between the treatment cost (`/KL as in 2010) and the required
footprintofthetreatmentplant(m2/MLD)forvarioussuggestedtechnologicaloptions.Fora
particulardesiredeffluentquality,thetechnologicaloptionwithhighertreatmentcostwill
generallyrequirelowertreatmentplantfootprint,andviceversa.
5. DecisionMatrix
Theselectionofaprocessrequiresanalysisofallfactors,notjusttreatmentcosts.Inorder
to provide additional factors for the final considerations, key parameters need to be
evaluated and weighed as shown in the Exhibit 1 to reach a final recommendation. The
matrix attributes are ranked as Low, Medium, High and Very High recognizing that
differences between processes are relative, and often, the result of commonly accepted
observations.ThecolumnentitledTypicalCapacityRangeisaddedtoillustratetherange
in which the treatment plants based on specific processes have been built so far in the
7|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
country should not be construed as showing technological limitations, nor to affirm that
plants outside that range do not exist. The ranges simply indicate most frequently found
sizes. A comparison of treatment costs and evaluation of various technologies for sewage
treatmentinIndiaispresentedinTable2.
In general it is accepted worldwide that the technologies which are deemed to be
appropriatehavetobequalifiedthroughapplicationofarigorousframeworkunderscoring
the performance expectations as well as the choice should be concurrent with the socio
economicacceptability.
27
24
21
TreatmentCost,`/kL
18
15
12
8
6
4
2
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
5700
6000
6300
EA - ASP
UASB + ASP
SBR
ASP + BNR
MBBR
MBR
WSP
EA - ASP
UASB + ASP
SBR
ASP + BNR
MBBR
MBR
WSP
12
TreatmentuptoTertiaryLevel
TreatmentCost,`/kL
10
TreatmentuptoSecondaryLevel
ASP
MBBR
SBR
UASB+EA
MBR
WSP
0
0
500
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
2
TreatmentPlantFootprint,m /MLD
Figure2:
8|P a g e
TreatmentCost(asin2010)andCorrespondingPlantFootprintforvarious
SecondaryTreatmentOptions
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Table2:ComparisonofTreatmentCostsofVariousTechnologiesforSewageTreatmentinIndia
S.No.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
AssessmentParameter/Technology
PerformanceafterSecondaryTreatment
EffluentBOD,mg/L
EffluentSS,mg/L
Faecalcoliformremoval,logunit
TNRemovalEfficiency,%
PerformanceAfterTertiaryTreatment
EffluentBOD,mg/L
EffluentSS,mg/L
EffluentNH3N,mg/L
EffluentTP,mg/L
EffluentTotalColiforms,MPN/100mL
Capitalcost
AverageCapitalCost(SecondaryTreatment),`.Lacs/MLD
AverageCapitalCost(TertiaryTreatment), `.Lacs/MLD
TotalCapitalCost(Secondary+Tertiary)`.Lacs/MLD
CivilWorks,%oftotalcapitalcosts
E&MWorks,%oftotalcapitalcosts
AreaRequirements
AverageArea,m2 perMLD
4.1
SecondaryTreatment+SecondarySludgeHandling
ASP*,a
MBBR*,c
SBR*,a
UASB+EA*,b
MBR*,a
WSP**,b
<20
<30
upto2<3
1020
<30
<30
upto2<3
1020
<10
<10
upto3<4
7080
<20
<30
upto2<3
1020
<5
<5
upto5<6
7080
<40
<100
upto2<3
1020
<10
<5
<1
<0.5
10
<10
<5
<1
<0.5
10
<10
<5
<1
<0.5
10
<10
<5
<1
<0.5
10
<10
<5
<1
<0.5
10
<10
<5
<1
<0.5
10
68.00
40.00
108.00
60.00
40.00
68.00
40.00
108.00
40.00
60.00
75.00
40.00
115.00
30.00
70.00
68.00
40.00
108.00
65.00
35.00
300.00
300.00
20.00
80.00
23.00
40.00
63.00
90.00
10.00
900.00
450.00
450.00
1000.00
450.00
6000.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
100.00
1000.00
550.00
550.00
1100.00
450.00
6100.00
AverageArea,m perMLD
4.2
TertiaryTreatment+TertiarySludgeHandling
2
TotalArea,m perMLD
4.3
Secondary+TertiaryTreatment
SludgeTreatment:*Thickener+Centrifuge;**Drying
a
9|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
S.No. AssessmentParameter/Technology
5.0
Operation&MaintenanceCosts
5.1 EnergyCosts(PerMLD)
5.1.1
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
Avg.TechnologyPowerRequirement,kWh/d/MLD
SecondaryTreatment+SecondarySludgeHandling
Avg.TechnologyPowerRequirement,kWh/d/MLD
TertiaryTreatment+TertiarySludgeHandling
Avg.NonTechnologyPowerReq.,kWh/d/MLD
SecondaryTreatment
Avg.NonTechnologyPowerReq.,kWh/d/MLD
TertiaryTreatment
5.1.5 TotalDailyPowerRequirement(avg.),kWh/d/MLD
DailyPowerCost(@`6.0perKWh),`./MLD/h
5.1.6
(IncludingStandbypowercost)
5.1.7 YearlyPowerCost,`.lacspa/MLD
ASP*,a
MBBR*,c
SBR*,a
UASB+ASP*,b
MBR*,a
WSP**,b
180.00
220.00
150.00
120.00
300.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.50
2.50
2.50
4.50
2.50
2.50
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
185.70
223.70
153.70
125.70
302.50
5.70
46.43
55.93
38.43
31.43
75.93
1.43
4.07
4.90
3.37
2.75
6.65
0.49
3.00
1.00
1.94
0.43
2.38
3.00
1.00
1.30
0.65
1.94
3.00
1.00
1.04
0.81
1.84
3.00
1.00
2.11
0.38
2.48
3.00
1.00
1.70
0.06
1.76
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
5.00
6.00
0.90
5.30
0.90
5.30
0.90
3.30
0.90
6.30
1.20
7.20
3.60
3.60
8.64
7.20
5.04
28.08
14.04
42.12
629.26
3.60
3.60
5.76
4.80
2.88
20.64
10.32
30.96
638.11
3.60
3.60
4.32
3.60
2.16
17.28
8.64
25.92
451.22
3.60
3.60
8.64
7.20
5.04
28.08
14.04
42.12
618.96
3.60
3.60
4.32
1.20
8.64
21.36
10.68
32.04
504.86
0.20
5.2 Repairscost(PerMLD)
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.3
5.2.4
5.2.5
CivilWorksperAnnum,as%ofCivilWorksCost
E&MWorks,as%ofE&MWorksCost
CivilWorksMaintenance,`.Lacspa/MLD
E&MWorksMaintenance,`.Lacspa/MLD
Annualrepairscosts,`.Lacspa/MLD
5.3 ChemicalCost(PerMLD)
5.3.1
5.3.2
RecurringChemical/PolymerCosts,`.Lacspa/MLD
SecondaryTreatment
RecurringChemical,`.Lacspa/MLD
(Alum,Chlorine,Polymer)Costs,TertiaryTreatment
5.3.3 OtherChemicalCost,`.Lacspa/MLD
5.3.4 TotalChemicalCost,`.Lacspa/MLD
Manager,`.pa(1No.)
Chemist/Engineer,`.pa(1No.)
Operators,`.Pa(@`.12000pm)
Skilledtechnicians,`.pa(@`.10000pm)
Unskilledpersonnel,`.pa(@`.7000pm)
TotalSalaryCosts,`.Lacspa
Benefits(50%oftotalsalary),`.Lacspa
Salary+Benefits,`.Lacspa
TotalannualO&Mcosts,`.Lacspa
10|P a g e
832.55
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
S.No.
6.0
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
AssessmentParameter/Technology
NPV(2010)ofCapital+O&MCostfor15years,`.Lacs
Present(2010)TreatmentCost,paisa/L
AverageCapitalCost,`.Lacs/MLD
uptoSecondaryTreatment
YearlyPowerCost,`.lacspa/MLD
uptoSecondaryTreatment
AnnualRepairsCost,`.Lacspa/MLD
uptoSecondaryTreatment
AnnualChemicalCost,`Lacspa/MLD
uptoSecondaryTreatment
ManpowerCost,`. Lacspa
for50mldplantuptosecondarytreatment
7.5 TotalAnnualO&MCosts,`.Lacspa
uptoSecondaryTreatment
`.Lacs
NPV(2010)ofCapital+O&MCostfor15years,
7.6
uptoSecondaryTreatment
7.7 Present(2010)TreatmentCost,paisa/L
uptoSecondaryTreatment
ASP*,a
14838.92
0.54
MBBR*,c
14971.67
0.55
SBR*,a
12518.32
0.46
UASB+EA*,b
14684.42
0.54
MBR*,a
27488.27
1.00
WSP**,b
10722.96
0.39
68.00
68.00
75.00
68.00
23.00
4.04
4.87
3.34
2.73
0.10
1.50
1.22
1.16
1.56
1.11
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.60
33.70
24.77
20.74
33.70
25.63
353.02
372.11
288.15
290.72
116.09
8695.35
8981.58
8072.24
7760.85
2891.39
0.32
0.33
0.29
0.28
0.11
SludgeTreatment:*Thickener+Centrifuge;**Drying
a
ASP
NoSludgeDryingBeds.Howevercanbeprovidedtocater25%of
sludgedewateringunderemergencyconditions
NoFPUafterUASB,onlyExtendedAeration(EAProcess)
UASBnotRecommendedforinfluentSO4>25mg/L
NoBiologicalPhosphorusRemoval,Coagulantsarenecessary
NoEnergyRecoverysystemrecommendedonlyifBOD<250mg/L
Lessthan5hHRTMBBRisnotacceptable
Lessthan14hHRTSBRisnotacceptableforplantswithpeakfactor
2.5
Repair+Chemical+ManpowerCostofMBRis`.500Lacper50MLD
:ActivatedSludgeProcess
9. O&MofMBRincludesallchemical(Cleaning,Polymeretc.,)cost
10. CapitalcostofMBRincludesmembranereplacementcostfor15
years
11. AllWSP,sshouldhavemechanicalpretreatmentworks(Alltypesof
screens&Gritchambers)
12. SBRdataisbasedondatacollectedfromworkingIndianSBRwithbio
selector,OURcontrol,RAS,Nitrogenremoval
13. Manpowercostisassumedtobe20percentlessfortreatmentonly
uptosecondarystage
UASB
:UpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanket
MBBR :MovingBedBiologicalReactor
EA
:ExtendedAeration
SBR
MBR
:MembraneBioReactor
:SequentialBatchReactor
11|P a g e
WSP
:WasteStabilizationPond
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Exhibit1:AssessmentofTechnologyOptionsforSewageTreatmentintheGangaRiverBasin
Criteria
ASP
UASB+ASP
SBR
MBBR
MBR
WSP
All Flows
All Flows
All Flows
Smaller
Smaller
All Flows
Performance Reliability
Impact of Effluent Discharge
Potential of No Adverse Impact on Land
Potential of No Adverse Impact on Surface Waters
Potential of No Adverse Impact on Ground Waters
Impact of STP
Potential of No Adverse Impacts on Health of STP Staff/Locals
Potential of No Adverse Impacts on Surrounding Building/Properties
Low
Medium
High
Very High
ASP
:ActivatedSludgeProcess
UASB
:UpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanket
MBBR :MovingBedBiologicalReactor
EA
:ExtendedAeration
SBR
MBR
:MembraneBioReactor
:SequentialBatchReactor
12|P a g e
WSP
:WasteStabilizationPond
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
6. SludgeManagement
The sludge dewatering should be done using thickener followed by filter press or
centrifugeoranyotherequivalentmechanicaldevice.Sludgedryingbeds(SDB)should
be provided for emergency only. SDBs should be designed only for 25% of the sludge
generated from primary and secondary processes. The compressed sludge should be
converted into good quality manure using composting and/or vermicomposting
processes. Energy generation through anaerobic digestion of sludges in the form of
biogas and subsequent conversion to electrical energy as of now is viable only when
sewageBOD>250mg/L.Singlefuelenginesshouldbeusedforconversionofbiogasto
electrical energy. Hazardous sludge, if any should be disposed of as per the prevailing
regulations.
7. FlowMeasurement
FlowmeasuringdevicesshouldbeinstalledaftertheStageITreatmentaswellasatthe
outlet of the sewage treatment plant. These flow devices should be of properly
calibrated V notch with arrangements for automatic measurement of head. Additional
electronicorothertypeofflowmetersmayalsobeinstalled.Arrangementsshouldbe
madeforrealtimedisplayofmeasured(bothcurrentandmonthlycumulative)flowsat
prominentplaces.
8. BioassayTest
The bioassay test is gaining importance in wastewater treatment plant design and
operationasthewholeeffluenttoxicity(WET)test.Thistestusesastandardspeciesof
aquaticlifeforms(likefish,algae)asasurrogatetomeasuretheeffectoftheeffluenton
the receiving stream. The flowthrough method employing continuous sampling is
recommendedforonsitetests.
Flowrate(retentiontime):Foraflowthroughsystem,theUSEPAManualforAcute
Toxicity Test of Effluents (USEPA, 2002) specifies that the flow rate through the
proportionaldilutormustprovideforaminimumoffive90%replacementsofwater
volumeineachtestchamberevery24h(i.e.aretentiontimeof4.8h)(seeFigure3).
This replacement rate should provide sufficient flow to maintain an adequate
concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO). This implies a maximum HRT of 5.3 h (i.e.
0.9V/Q = 4.8) for a flowthrough system. Therefore, a flowthrough pond with a
maximum HRT of 5 h for 100% exposure is recommended for bioassay test of
tertiarytreatedeffluent.
Totalflowrequirement:10%oftheflow(subjectedtomaximum1MLD)isrequired
topassthroughthebioassaypond.
13|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
100
40
10
1
0.1
0.4
10
40
100
95% Replacement
75% Replacement
50% Replacement
90% Replacement
Figure3:Approximatetimesrequiredtoreplacewaterintestchambersinflowthroughtests
(For Example: For a chamber containing 4 L, with a flow of 2 L/h, the above graph
indicatesthat90%ofthewaterwouldbereplacedevery4.8h.Thesametimeperiod,
suchashours,mustbeusedonbothaxes,andthesameunitofvolume,suchasliters,
mustbeusedforbothvolumeandflow(AdaptedfromUSEPA,2002)
Depthofflowthroughsystemorpond:Thedepthoftheflowthroughbioassaypond
shouldbewithin1.5to2.5mbasedonanequivalentsystemofwastewaterfedfish
pond(aquaculture)(CostaPierce,1998;HoanandEdwards,2005).
Testorganisms:Inthebioassaypond,locallyfoundfish,algaeanddaphniashouldbe
inhabited in the bioassay pond. USEPA (2002) and APHA et al. (1995) have
recommended following freshwaterfish species when fish is the preferred form of
aquaticlife/testorganism:
1. Oncorhynchusmykiss(rainbowtrout)andSalvelinusfontinalis(brooktrout)
2. Pimephalespromelas(fatheadminnow)
3. Lepomismacrochirus(Bluegillsunfish)
4. Ictaluruspunctatus(Channelcatfish)
Based on above, following equivalent fish species are recommended under Indian
conditions.
1. Puntiasstigma
2. Puntiassophore
3. Anabas
4. Chelabacalia
5. Puntiastictoand
6. Colisafaciatus
14|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Other freshwater fish species like Gambusia affinis (mosquito fish) can also be
considered.DaphniapulexandD.magna(daphnids),Selenastrumsp.,Scenedesmus
aculeala, Scenedesmus guadacanda are also recommended similar to the
recommendationsmadebyUSEPA(2002)forbioassaytest.
Stocking density and number of test organisms: For flowthrough tests, the live
weight of test organisms in the system must not exceed 7.0 g/L (i.e. 7.0 kg/m3) of
volumeatl5C,or2.5g/L(i.e.2.5kg/m3)at25C(USEPA,2002).Aminimumof20
organismsofagivenspeciesarerequiredforthetest.
Aerationandoxygenrequirements:SufficientDO(4.0mg/Lforwarmwaterspecies
and 6.0 mg/L for cold water species) should be maintained in the pond for proper
environmentfortestorganisms.TheDOdepletionisnotaproblemincaseofaflow
throughsystembecauseaerationoccursasthewaterpassthroughthesystem.IfDO
decreasestoalevelthatwouldbeasourceofadditionalstress,theturnoverrateof
thewatervolumemustbeincreased(i.e.theHRTofthesystemmustbedecreased)
sufficientlytomaintainacceptableDOlevels(USEPA,2002).Alternativelyfountainor
cascadeaerationarrangementsmaybeprovided.
Bioassaytestacceptabilitycriterion:Nomortality(100%survival)oftestorganisms
underanycondition.
SalientFeaturesofRecommendedSTPs
Continuousmeasurementofflowattheinletandoutlet
Excellentpreliminarytreatment
Treatmentuptotertiarylevel
Onlinebioassaytest
Designedandbuiltasmodularunits
PumpingandSTPstobetakentogetherforcontracting/bidding
15|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
9. References
APHA, AWWA, WEF (1995) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19th ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works
Association,WaterEnvironmentFederation,Washington,DC.
Arceivala,S.J.andAsolekar,S.R.(2006)WastewaterTreatmentforPollutionControl
(3rdEdition),McGrawHillEducation(India)Pvt.Ltd.,NewDelhi
Asolekar, S. R. and Gopichandran,R. (2005) Preventive Environmental Management
AnIndianPerspective,FoundationBooks Pvt. Ltd.,NewDelhi(theIndianassociateof
CambridgeUniversityPress,UK)
CostaPierce, B.A. (1998) Preliminary investigation of an integrated aquaculture
wetlandecosystemusingtertiarytreatedmunicipalwastewaterinLosAngelesCounty,
California.Ecol.Eng.10,341354.
Hoan,V.Q.,Edwards,P.(2005)WastewaterreusethroughurbanaquacultureinHanoi,
Vietnam:Statusandprospects,in:CostaPierce,B.A.,Desbonnet,A.,Edwards,P.(Eds.),
UrbanAquaculture,CABIPublishing,Wallingford,UK,pp.103117.
Kumar,R.(2010)DraftUnpublishedReportentitled:StatusofSewageWastewaterand
TechnologyReviewInIndia,NEERIZonalOffice,Mumbai
Tare,V.andBose,P.(2009)CompendiumofSewageTreatmentTechnologies,National
RiverConservationDirectorate,MinistryofEnvironmentalandForests,Governmentof
India
USEPA (2002) Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fifth ed. EPA821R02012. Washington
DC,U.S.A.
16|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
AppendixI:ExhibitsonOptionsfor
SecondaryTreatment
Exhibit1:ASPConventionalActivatedSludgeProcess
Influent
PST
Aeration
Tank
Secondary
Clarifier
ReturnedSludge
Effluent
ExcessSludge
SchematicDiagramofaConventionalActivatedSludgeProcess
Goodprocessflexibility
Reliableoperation
Proventrackrecordinallplantsizes
Lesslandrequirements
Lowodoremission
Energyproduction
Abilitytowithstandnominalchangesinwatercharacteristics
Highenergyconsumption
Skilledoperatorsneeded
Uninterruptedpowersupplyisrequired
Requiressludgedigestionanddrying
Lessnutrientremoval
Demerits
17|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Exhibit2:MBBRMovingBedBiofilmReactor
Influent
MBBRI
MBBRII
AirBlower
Secondary
Clarifier
Effluent
ExcessSludge
SchematicDiagramofaMovingBedBioReactor
MovingBedBiofilmReactorisanaerobicattachedbiologicalgrowthprocess.Itdoesnot
requireprimaryclarifierandsludgerecirculation.Rawsewage,afterscreeningandde
gritting,isfedtothebiologicalreactor.Inthereactor,floatingplasticmediaisprovided
whichremainsinsuspension.Biologicalmassisgeneratedonthesurfaceofthemedia.
Attached biological mass consumes organic matter for their metabolism. Excess
biological mass leaves the surface of media and it is settled in clarifier. Usually a
detentiontimeof5to12hisprovidedinthereactors.
MBBR were initially used for small sewage flow rates and because of less space
requirement.Inlargeplant,mediaquantityisveryhighanditrequireslongshutdown
periodforplantmaintenance.Infact,itmaynotbesuccessfulforlargecapacityplants.
Moreovertheplasticmediaispatentedandnotavailableintheopenmarket,leadingto
singlesupplierconditionswhichlimitordenypricecompetition.Inaddition,duetovery
less detention time and other engineering factors, functional Moving Bed Biofilm
ReactorinIndiadonotproduceacceptablequalityeffluent.
Merits
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor needs less space since there is no primary
clarifieranddetentionperiodinreactorisgenerally45h.
Abilitytowithstandshockloadwithequalizationtankoption
Highoperatoroversightisnotrequired
Highoperatingcostduetolargepowerrequirements
Notmuchexperienceavailablewithlargercapacityplants(>1.5MLD)
Skilledoperatorsneeded
Noenergyproduction
EffluentqualitynotuptothemarkinIndia
Muchlessnutrientremoval
Designedcriterianotwellestablished
Demerits
18|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Exhibit3:SBRSequencingBatchReactor
SchematicDiagramofaSequencingBatchReactor(AContinuousProcessInBatch)
A number of largescale plants exist around the world with several years of continuous
operation.InIndiaalso,therearelargescaleplantsoperatingefficientlysincemorethana
year. Hundreds of fullscale plants operated on Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology are
undersuccessfuloperationinJapan.Somepartsarepatentedandnotavailableintheopen
market,leadingtosinglesupplierconditionswhichlimitordenypricecompetition.
Merits
Excellenteffluentquality
Smallerfootprintbecauseofabsenceofprimary,secondaryclarifiersanddigester
RecenttrackrecordavailableinlargeapplicationsinIndiaalso
Biologicalnutrient(N&P)removal
Highdegreeofcoliformremoval
Lesschlorinedosingrequiredforpostdisinfection
Abilitytowithstandhydraulicandorganicshockloads
Demerits
Comparativelyhighenergyconsumption
Toachievehighefficiency,completeautomationisrequired
Highlyskilledoperatorsneeded
Noenergyproduction
Uninterruptedpowersupplyrequired
19|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Exhibit4:UASB+ASPUpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanketFollowedbyActivatedSludge
Process
Gas
Influent
UASB
Aeratio
nTank
ReturnedSludge
Sludge
Secondary
Clarifier
Effluent
ExcessSludge
SchematicDiagramofanUpflowAnaerobicSludgeBlanketProcessfollowedbyASP
Itisananaerobicprocessinwhichinfluentwastewaterisdistributedatthebottomof
the UASB reactor and travels in an upflow mode through the sludge blanket. Critical
components of UASB design are the influent distribution system, the gasliquidsolid
separator (GLSS) and effluent withdrawal design. Compared to other anaerobic
processes,UASBallowstheuseofhighhydraulicloading.
Merits
Relativelysimpleoperationandmaintenance
Noexternalenergyrequirementandhencelessvulnerabletopowercuts
Noprimarytreatmentrequired
Energyproductionpossiblebutgenerallynotachieved
Lowsludgeproduction
Nospecialcareorseedingrequiredafterinterruptedoperations
Canabsorbhydraulicandorganicshockloading
Posttreatmentrequiredtomeettheeffluentstandard
Anoxiceffluentexertshighoxygendemand
LargeLandrequirement
MoremanpowerrequireforO&M
Effluent quality is not up to the mark and poor fecal and total coliform
removal
FoulsmellandcorrosionproblemsaroundSTParea
Highchlorinedosingrequiredfordisinfection.
Lessnutrientremoval
Demerits
20|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Exhibit5:MBRMembraneBioreactor
Effluent
WasteSludge
Permeate
MixedLiquidRecycle
Influent
Membrane
Module
Anoxic
Zone
MixedLiquid
recirculationpump
Aeration
AirScourBlower
BIOREACTOR
SchematicDiagramofaMembraneBioreactor
Lowhydraulicretentiontimeandhencelowfootprint(area)requirement
Lesssludgeproduction
Highqualityeffluentintermsoflowturbidity,TSS,BODandbacteria
Stabilizedsludge
Abilitytoabsorbshockloads
Highconstructioncost
Veryhighoperationcost
Periodiccleaningandreplacementofmembranes
Highmembranecost
Highautomation
Foulingofmembrane
Noenergyproduction
Demerits
21|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Anaerobicpond
HRT=1day
Influent
Facultativepond
HRT=5days
Maturationponds
HRT=34days
Effluent
Sludgestoragelagoon
and
Sludgedryingbeds
Aquaculturepond
(HRT>12days)
(optional)
SchematicDiagramofaWasteStabilizationPond
Sewageistreatedinaseriesofearthenponds.Initiallyafterscreeninganddegrittingitis
fedtoananaerobicpondforinitialpretreatment;depthofanaerobicpondisusually3to3.5
m;asaresultthelowersectionofponddoesnotgetoxygenandananaerobicconditionis
developed.BODreductiontakesplacebyanaerobicmetabolismandgaseslikeammoniaand
hydrogensulphideareproducedcreatingodorproblems.AfterreductionofBODby40%it
enters the facultative/aerobic pond, which is normally 1 1.5 m in depth. Lesser depth
allows continuous oxygen diffusion from atmosphere; in addition algae in the pond also
producesoxygen.
ThoughBODattheoutletremainswithintherange,sometimestheeffluenthasgreencolor
duetopresenceofalgae.Thealgaegrowthcancontributetothedeteriorationofeffluent
quality (higher total suspended solids) from time to time. Moreover, coliforms removal is
alsoin12logorder.Theoperatingcostofawastestabilizationpondisminimum,mostly
related to the cost of cleaning the pond once in two to three years. A waste stabilization
pond requires a very large land area and it is normally used for small capacity plant,
especiallywherebarrenlandisavailable.
Merits
Simpletoconstructandoperateandmaintain
Lowoperatingandmaintenancecost
Selfsufficiency,ecologicalbalance,andeconomicviabilityisgreater
Possiblerecoveryofthecompleteresources
Goodabilitytowithstandhydraulicandorganicloadfluctuations
Requiresextremelylargeareas
Largeevaporationlossofwater
Iflinerisbreached,groundwaterisimpacted
Effluentqualitymayvarywithseasons
Noenergyproduction
Comparativelyinferiorqualityofeffluent
Lessnutrientremoval
Highchlorinedosingfordisinfection
Odorandvectornuisance
Lossofvaluablegreenhousegasestotheatmosphere
Demerits
22|P a g e
ReportCode:003_GBP_IIT_EQP_S&R_02_Ver1_Dec2010
Exhibit7:CWConstructedWetlands
Wetlands are natural processes similar to stabilization ponds. Wetlands are shallow
ponds comprising of submerged plants and floating islands of marshy species. Natural
forces including chemical, physical, biological and solar is involved in the process to
achieve wastewater treatment. Thick mats of vegetation trap suspend solids and
biologicalprocesstakesplaceattherootsoftheplants.Itproducesthedesiredquality
oftreatedsewagebutlandrequirementisveryhigh,thoughitislesscomparedtowaste
stabilizationpond.Runningcostiscomparativelylow.
Wetlandprocesshavenotyetestablishedcomparedtootherprocesses.Therearetwo
typesofsystems;surfaceandsubsurfacedistributionofsewage.Thetypeofvegetation
grown varies, in some cases there is regular tree cutting and plantation as a part of
maintenancework.PlantslikeTypha,Phragamites,KattailcanbeusedinIndia.Another
typeofwetlandsuseaplantcalledduckweedfortreatment.Thisweedhasaveryfast
metabolicrateandabsorbspollutantsveryquickly.
Merits
Simpletoconstructandoperateandmaintain
Lowoperatingandmaintenancecost
Selfsufficiency,ecologicalbalance,andeconomicviabilityisgreater
Possibilityofcompleteresourcerecovery
Goodabilitytowithstandhydraulicandorganicloadfluctuations
Demerits
Requireslargearea
Largeevaporationlossofwater
Noteasytorecoverfrommassiveupset
Iflinerisbreached,groundwaterisimpacted
Effluentqualitymayvarywithseasons
Noenergyproduction
Nonutrientremoval
Odorandvectornuisance
Lossofvaluablegreenhousegasestotheatmosphere
23|P a g e