CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, water treatment related issues are becoming expensive as governments are
not only giving emphasis to treat wastewater in order to protect their resources but the
concept of reuse & recycling is also becoming an important aspect. Not only this, residues
emanating there from, and other treatment by- products are also being included in the overall
wastewater management system. On the other hand, emphasis is also being given to clean
technologies to minimize waste production. However, in countries like India, the treatment
issue is dominant and receiving due attention these days.

During the past two decades, several new sewage treatment technologies have been
developed and are being adopted in many developing countries particularly in the South-
East Asian region including India. Some of the technologies are Fluidized Aerobic Bed
(FAB), Anaerobic Filter (AF), Expanded Granular Sludge Blanket (EGSB), Sequencing
Batch Reactor (SBR), Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), Fluidized Aerated Bed Reactor (FAB),
Submerged Aeration Fixed Film Reactor (SAFF), BIOFOR (Biological Filter Oxygenated
Reactor), Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) process etc. Every technology has its
pros & cons and therefore has to be applied in accordance to the local conditions.

In India, where the government has felt a need to prevent pollution of its rivers and
preserving natural resources, a major action plan has been formulated under which a good
number of towns and cities have been identified by the National River Conservation
Directorate under the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), Government of India.
The objective of river action plan is to conserve the river water bodies. Within this
framework, the Ganga Action Plan (GAP) was incepted and implemented in mid 80’s. After
the implementation of GAP in few states, Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) was formulated in
early 1990 for the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi where major part of Yamuna
River flows. The YAP was funded by JBIC (formerly OECF, Japan) under a soft loan
bilaterally agreed arrangement. The total expenditure incurred under YAP Phase I and II was
Rs. 6820 million, under which a sewage treatment capacity of 753 MLD has been created
(MoEF, 2006).

In many countries, UASB has been applied for the treatment of high strength wastewater,
but in India, it has been employed for the treatment of domestic wastewater (Lucas Seghezzo
et al 1998). Brazil and Columbia are the other two countries in the world where this

1
technology has been used (Lucas Seghezzo et al 1998). It is now being used and gaining
popularity in other countries like in Ras-Al-Khaimah (UAE), Angola, Indonesia etc.

With respect to the application of UASB technology, the experience gained in India is unique
and diverse. India is one of the leading countries in terms of the amount of sewage volume
treated by the UASB process (Sato et al, 2007) . It has been recognized as one of the most
cost effective and suitable sewage treatment process considering the environmental
requirements in India. At present large number of sewage treatment plants based on the
UASB are in operation and many are in pipeline which are likely to be commissioned within
coming years. These plants have come up under different national plans during the last 20
years under various river catchments, i.e., GAP from Himalayan region to the Bay Bengal,
Sabarmati in the state of Gujarat, Godavari in the states of Maharasthra and Andhra Pradesh,
Sutlaj in the state of Punjab, Khan in the state of Madhya Pradesh and YAP. However, the
present study focuses on economic viability of different technologies for sewage treatment
which still remains untreated in India.

2
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Water is one of the most valuable natural resources in the world. Unfortunately, it is being rapidly
contaminated and urgent measures need to be taken for avoid its damage. In many countries, wastewater
is released directly to lakes and rivers without treatment, and environmentally and economically feasible
methods for wastewater treatment, are therefore, urgently needed.

A large number of technologies have been developed to achieve pollutant removal from wastewater.
Both aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatment systems are currently in use. They can be seen as
complementary to each other, since in some situations anaerobic systems can not fulfil the requirements
of effluent quality. The aerobic treatment processes were predominant in the biological treatment of
wastewater up to the seventies. Interest in anaerobic processes emerged 10-15 years later due to the
increase in energy costs. The anaerobic treatment of wastewater does not consume energy but can even
produce energy through methane generation. The two major advantages of anaerobic wastewater
treatment, which explain its progress at the expense of the classic aerobic treatment, are less sludge
growth and considerable energy saving.

The Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor is considered to be one of the most
successful anaerobic systems, capable of forming dense aggregates by auto immobilisation and
consequently allowing high-rate reactor performance (Kaluzhnyi et al, 2006). Its primary use is in
the treatment of high concentration industrial wastewaters, but it can be also used in the treatment
of municipal wastewater which has a lower contaminant strength (Leitão, 2004). Because of its
simple design, easy construction and maintenance, low operating cost and ability to withstand
fluctuations in pH, temperature and influent substrate concentration, it has gained in popularity
(Alvarez et al, 2006).

The final objective of the biological treatment of wastewater is the transformation of dissolved
and particulate organic constituents into acceptable end products such as carbon dioxide, methane
and new organic materials. Suspended and non-settleable colloidal solids and micro-organisms are
incorporated into a biological floc or biofilm. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are
transformed or removed during the treatment due biochemical reactions. In industrial wastewater,
some of the constituents may be toxic to microorganisms, so some type of pre-treatment could be
required prior to the biological treatment.

The removal and stabilization of dissolved and particulate carbonaceous organic matter found in
wastewater are carried out biologically using a variety of micro-organisms, principally bacteria.
In anaerobic digestion, these micro-organisms convert organic matter into simple end products

3
and additional biomass following the general equation for anaerobic biological degradation
(Romero, 1999):

Organic Matter + Nutrients + Bacteria -- New Cells + CH4 + CO2

Anaerobic digestion is one of the oldest technologies for stabilizing wastewaters and sludge. It has
been applied since the end of the 19th century, mainly for the treatment of household waste (water)
in septic tanks, for the treatment of slurries in digesters and for the treatment of sewage sludge in
municipal treatment plants.

The interest in the use of anaerobic treatment processes can be addressed by considering the
advantages and disadvantages of these processes. The principal advantages of the anaerobic
treatment are the fact that the process is net energy producer instead of an energy user, its low
biomass production, the low nutrient requirements and the high volumetric loadings possible. The
disadvantages of the anaerobic compared with anaerobic processes are mainly operational
considerations, such as long start up time, the possible need to neutralize the acidity by adding
alkali; and that further treatment may be required, e.g. effluent polishing to improve the quality of
the treated water (Tchobanoglous, 2003).

4
CHAPTER 3

SEWAGE TREATMENT IN INDIA

India is the second most populous country in the world with an estimated population of over 1.3 billion
during 2017. There are 29 states and 7 Union Territories(UTs) in the country. Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB), is an apex body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF
& CC), Government of India (GOI) for control and abatement of pollution in India. According to CPCB,
the estimated sewage generation in the country during 2015 was 61,948Million Litres per Day (MLD)
against available treatment capacity of 23,277 MLD. There are 816 Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) in
the country out of which 522 are operational, 79 are non-operational, 145 are under construction and 70
are under planning stage. While the existing installed treatment capacity corresponds to around 37.6%,
the operational capacity of the STPs is only 30.5% of the total sewage generated. The remaining
untreated sewage is discharged into nearby water bodies. Domestic sewage is considered responsible for
about 80% of the water pollution in India due to inadequate sewage treatment facilities.
The National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) which functions under MOEF & CC
provides assistance to various State Governments for implementing the River Action Plans in 29
identified grossly polluted stretches of various rivers of India under the National River
Conservation Plan (NRCP). The objective of NRCP is to improve the water quality of these rivers,
which are the major fresh water sources in the country, through the implementation of pollution
abatement schemes. MOEF & CC in its draft notification released on 24 November 2015 under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has set up new standards for sewage treatment plants along
with time frame for implementation as shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Standards for STPs

3.1 Overview of Sewage Generation in India

There are 53 urban agglomerations in India with a population of 1 million or more as of 2011 against 35
in 2001. The rapid rate of growth of urbanization from 10.7% in 1971 to 37.7% in 2011 has put lot of
stress on urban infrastructure including potable water supply and safe disposal of wastewater. According

5
to CPCB report on inventorization of STPs in India published in March 2015, the states/UTs generating
various amounts of sewage are shown in Figure 3.1. There are three states which contribute to more than
5000MLD of sewage whereas Lakshadweep is a UT contributing to 10MLD as shown in Table 2. The
five states i.e., Maharashtra (13%), Gujarat (7%), Uttar Pradesh (12%), Delhi (7%) and Tamil Nadu
(9%) contributed to around 50% of the sewage generated in India whereas 67% of the total sewage
treatment capacity is installed in these states/UTs. The overall BOD load discharged into surface water
bodies has been assessed as 14352.7TPD out of which less than 1% is contributed by industries (CPCB,
2016). The raw sewage characteristics with respect to BOD, COD and TSS are reported to range from
50 – 250mg/L (185.5mg/L), 100 – 700mg/L (481 mg/L) and 100 – 500 mg/L (328mg/L) with average
values in parenthesis. Average COD to BOD ratio is found to be around 2.6 (CPCB, 2005).

Figure 3.1 Sewage Generation of Urban Population in 2015

Table 3.2 Sewage Generation Classification

6
3.2 Status of Sewage Treatment in India

During 2015, the installed treatment capacity of STPs was 37.58% of the total sewage generated by
Urban Agglomerations out of which 81.12% of the sewage was under operational capacity of installed
STPs while 5.32% was non-operational, 10.86% of the sewage would be treated in STPs under
construction and 2.70% of the sewage was under proposed capacity as shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 Sewage Treatment Potential in India

Out of 816 STPs, 522 were in operation whereas 79 STPs were non-operational and 145 STPs were
under construction as shown in Figure 3. The number of STPs proposed are 70 with treatment capacity
of 628.64 MLD.
Figure 3.3 Status of STP in India

There are different technologies which are adopted for the treatment of sewage in India, which includes
Activated Sludge Process (ASP), Waste Stabilization Ponds(WSP), Aerated Lagoons (AL), Trickling
Filters (TF), Fluidizied Aerated Bed (FAB), Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB), Oxidation
Pond (OP) and advanced technologies like Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR), Membrane bioreactor
(MBR) (CPCB, 2015). The STPs prevailing in India are shown in Figure 3.4.

7
In recent years, UASB technology has been extensively employed for treatment of domestic sewage in
India. It is claimed that 80% of total UASB reactors installed globally for domestic wastewater treatment
are in India (Khalil et al., 2008). 48 UASB based STPs are in operation accounting for around 72% of
the plants and remaining are either non-operational or under construction and commissioning phase
(CPCB, 2015) as shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.4 Status of various sewage treatment technologies in India

Figure 3.5 Zone wise distribution of UASB based STPs in India

8
3.3 Performance of UASB based STPs at National Level

The Government of India initiated the Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) in 1993 for conservation of river
Yamuna under which 16 UASB STPs were commissioned (Khalil et al., 2008) and 19 UASB plants
under Ganga Action Plan-Phase I (GAP-I)(CPCB, 2015).The average BOD, COD and TSS removal
efficiency of UASB based plants in India is reported to be 66%, 61% and 65% respectively. The
maximum BOD and COD removal efficiency has been found in UASB based STPs in Hyderabad. 97%
BOD removal efficiency is reported from 30MLD Nallacheruvu plant with 9hrs HRT in UASB reactor
followed by 1 day HRT in facultative aerated lagoons. Similarly 98% COD reduction is obtained in 339
MLD STP in Amberpet, Hyderabad. The HRT of UASB reactor is 8.88 hrs and that of Aeration tanks
and Polishing Ponds are 1day and 12 hrs respectively. Minimum BOD removal efficiency of 44% is
reported from 14MLD STP in Jaganpur, Agra with UASB technology followed by Polishing Ponds for
post treatment whereas 56MLD STP in Ghaziabad has a minimum COD removal efficiency of 42%.
The designed capacity of this plant is 56 MLD whereas actual treatment capacity is 58 MLD (CPCB,
2013). HRT of UASB is 10.7hr and that of Final Polishing Unit is 1.5day (Sato et al.2006). The average
TSS removal efficiency of UASB reactors treating sewage is 65%. Maximum removal efficiency is
found in 78 MLD STP in Kabt Khedi, Indore, Madhya Pradesh and minimum TSS removal efficiency
is of 40 MLD STP in Karnal which is about 42%. UASB alone does not meet discharge standards;
therefore, various post-treatments were used in combination with UASB reactor to achieve desired BOD
and SS reduction (Khalil et al., 2008). The best operating full scale UASB reactor has achieved 67, 70
and 75% of removal efficiencies for COD, BOD and TSS in which temperature varies between 17 and
27ºC (Van Lier et al., 2010).

3.4 Requirement of post-treatment after UASB reactor

The prime objective of installing post-treatment in combination with UASB reactor is to meet the
effluent standards set by NRCD for public health, safety, water usage and environmental considerations
(Sato et al., 2006). There are various types of post-treatment configurations based on different
combinations such as UASB + Activated Sludge, UASB + Biofilm Aerobic Reactor System, UASB +
Polishing Ponds etc. UASB with ASP is considered most appropriate combination for treatment in warm
conditions than the conventional AS system alone (Khan et al., 2011). Polishing ponds are very
interesting alternative post-treatment option because they require less investment costs and simple
design and operation (Sato et al., 2006). Utilization of UASB reactor and polishing ponds can reduce
the problems related to odours in plants (Cavalcanti et al., 2001). Polishing pond technology has been
used commonly in many developing countries because the polishing pond effluent can be used for
agriculture purposes as it aims at the removal of pathogens present in sewage (Chernicharo, 2006). TF

9
can be adopted as post-treatment for treating UASB effluent for low hydraulic and organic rates under
mesophilic conditions in tropical countries (Khan et al., 2011).

3.5 UASB Operation and Maintenance

The overall efficiency of STPs depends on the operation and maintenance of reactor. The UASB
technology should be constructed, operated and maintained by professionals. UASB reactor operation
requires various activities which are necessary for better performance of a reactor. Activities like process
performance monitoring, collection of data, collection of influent and effluent samples for testing,
collection of sludge samples, etc. Operator of the plant is fully responsible for the operation and
maintenance of plant and a skilled and experienced operator is required to monitor the reactor and repair
the part. Plant operation also includes start-up process and shut down of the plant. UASB plant requires
a long start-up period as it takes several months for sludge to form and to adapt to the characteristics of
the wastewater. During starting phase, the granulation process accelerates by high organic loading rates
in connection with lower organic loading rates (Sasse, 1998). Monitoring of sludge and its profile inside
the reactor is one of the major operational activities related to UASB plants (Khalil et al., 2008).
Maintenance of UASB plant includes removal of floating layers inside the gas dome at least once in six
months, cleaning and repairing of gutters, V- notch weir plates, baffles and feeding boxes, checking of
the level of the overflow weirs yearly, removal of floating scum/material at the top of the water surface
of the reactor once a day and cleaning of chocked feeding pipes (O & M Manual, Lalpani, Shimla).
Consequences of operational failure include deterioration of effluent quality (Chernicharo and Almeida
2010) and impose a barrier for energy recovery by blocking the natural passage of gas (Chernicharo et
al., 2015). Operation and maintenance cost of UASB plants is less than 1% of the capital cost per annum
(Khalil et al., 2008).

3.6 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor

The upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB) is a single tank process. Wastewater enters the
reactor from the bottom, and flows upward. A suspended sludge blanket filters and treats the wastewater
as the wastewater flows through it.

10
 Figure 3.6 Sectional View of a UASB Reactor

The sludge blanket is comprised of microbial granules (1 to 3 mm in diameter), i.e., small

agglomerations of microorganisms that, because of their weight, resist being washed out in the upflow.
The microorganisms in the sludge layer degrade organic compounds. As a result, gases (methane and
carbon dioxide) are released. The rising bubbles mix the sludge without the assistance of any mechanical
parts. Sloped walls deflect material that reaches the top of the tank downwards. The clarified effluent is
extracted from the top of the tank in an area above the sloped walls.

After several weeks of use, larger granules of sludge form which, in turn, act as filters for smaller
particles as the effluent rises through the cushion of sludge. Because of the upflow regime, granule-
forming organisms are preferentially accumulated as the others are washed out.

3.7 Working of a UASBR

UASB type units are one in which no special media have to be used since the sludge granules themselves
act as the 'media' and stay in suspension. UASB system is not patented. A typical arrangement of a
UASB type treatment plant for municipal sewage would be as follows:

1. Initial pumping
2. Screening and degritting
3. Main UASB reactor
4. Gas collection and conversion or conveyance
5. Sludge drying bed
6. Post treatment facility

In the UASB process, the whole waste is passed through the anaerobic reactor in an upflow mode, with
a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of only about 8-10 hours at average flow. No prior sedimentation is

11
required. The anaerobic unit does not need to be filled with stones or any other media; the upflowing
sewage itself forms millions of small "granules" or particles of sludge which are held in suspension and
provide a large surface area on which organic matter can attach and undergo biodegradation. A high
solid retention time (SRT) of 30-50 or more days occurs within the unit. No mixers or aerators are
required. The gas produced can be collected and used if desired. Anaerobic systems function
satisfactorily when temperatures inside the reactor are above 18-20°C. Excess sludge is removed from
time to time through a separate pipe and sent to a simple sand bed for drying.

12
CHAPTER 4

METHODOLOGY

A good number of sewage treatment plants under various river action plans have been created over
the past two decades. Numerous technologies like activated sludge process, trickling filter, waste
stabilization ponds, UASB and other new technologies have been applied. Based on the reliable
source of data available and experience of authors, an attempt has been made to evaluate the total
annual cost of different sewage treatment technologies operated in India with an objective to compare
and forecast the future prospects of UASB. The total annual cost can be used as a reference for
selecting an appropriate technology for future STP projects in India and other countries having
similar economies. UASB with Final Polishing Unit (FPU), and Extended Aeration System (EAS)
and other common technologies being used in India such as activated sludge process (ASP), Trickling
Filter (TF), Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR), Moving Bed Bioreactor (MBBR) and Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR) have been considered for total annual cost.

Data on capital costs, O&M costs, land price etc. were collected from various reliable sources. The value
of capital recovery factor is used as 0.124 and cost of land is taken as Rs 2200 per m2. The total annual
cost was calculated by using standard equation,
TAC = CRF x IC + OMC
Where TAC is the total annual cost, CRF the capital recovery factor, IC the initial cost (e.g., for capital,
land), OMC the operation and maintenance cost (e.g., manpower, power, repair, replacement of E&M
items, chemicals). Table 4.1 presents the total annual costs for different technologies on per MLD basis.

It can be seen from Tables 4.1 that the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs for WSP is lowest
followed by UASB with FPU. Although WSP option is lowest but it cannot be considered due to
large area requirement for places where large vacant land may not be available. It can be applied
where land is cheap and easily available which could be possible for small flows in other areas. After
WSP, UASB in combination with FPU gives better proposition in terms of investments as
compared to other technologies. Experience of Trickling Filters has not been very good in India and
therefore it is not recommended anymore. The SBR and MBR offer good effluent quality but their
investment and O&M costs are very high. The second best option is UASB with EAS. Its investment
and O&M costs are not high vis- à-vis the effluent quality is better as compared to UASB+FPU. In a
nutshell, UASB with FPU or EAS still has a better future in India as compared to other technologies.

13
 Table 4.1 : Evaluation of O&M Cost and Unit Capital Cost on Per MLD basis in Indian Rupees
S.No. Item/Parameter ASP TF WSP UASB+FPU UASB+EAS MBBR SBR MBR
1. Overall HRT (Whole System) 12 - 14 hrs 13 - 14 hrs 8 - 15 days 1.33 - 1.5 days 14 - 18 hrs 8 - 12 hrs 14 - 16 hrs 12 - 14 hrs
2. BOD Removal, % 85 - 95 80 - 90 75 - 85 80 - 88 80 - 95 85 - 95 90 - 95 95 - 98
3. COD Removal, % 80 - 90 85 - 90 70 - 85 80 - 85 80 - 90 80 - 90 88 - 96 95 - 100
4. TSS Removal, % 85 - 90 75 - 85 70 - 85 80 - 85 85 - 90 85 - 95 90 - 96 98 - 100

5. Average Area required (m2/mld) 1,820 1,620 8,000 1,800 1,450 450 300 800
6. Capital Cost, Rs. Lacs per MLD 34 30 13 32.5 34 42 58 85
7. Biogas Generation m3 55 - 70 55 - 70 Nil 35 - 50 35 - 50 Nil Nil Nil
8. Bio - Energy Generation (kWh) 25 - 35 25 - 35 Nil 20 - 30 20 - 30 Nil Nil Nil
9. Annual Power Cost 4.2 3.56 0.17 0.25 1.51 5.29 4.70 5.61
10. Annual Civil, E&M maintenance Costs, Rs. Lacs Per MLD 1.36 1.20 0.13 1.30 1.36 1.68 1.89 13.60
11. Annual Recurring Costs (Chemicals etc.), Rs. Lacs 2.10 2.40 0.25 0.60 0.40 3.60 3.60 0.00
12. Annual Non-Recurring Costs (7 yrs for E&M items) 1.94 0.86 0.09 1.63 2.19 3.60 4.97 8.50
13. Total Annual Manpower O& M cost, Rs. Lacs per MLD 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34
14. Total Annual O&M Costs, Rs. Lacs per MLD 9.96 7.43 0.79 2.45 3.58 10.89 10.51 19.55

2
15. Avg. Land Cost Assumed (Per m ), Rs. Lacs 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220 0.0220
16. Cost of Land, Rs. Lacs per MLD 40.04 35.64 176.00 39.60 31.90 9.90 6.60 17.60
17. Unit Capital Cost including Land, Rs. Lacs per MLD 74.04 65.64 189.00 72.10 65.90 51.90 64.60 102.60

18. Capital Recovery Factor, CRF 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124 0.124
19. Total Annual Cost, Rs. Lacs per MLD 19.15 15.60 24.30 11.40 11.76 17.33 18.5 32.24

(Source: MoEF, 2004, 2005 and 2006, UPJN 2006, N. Sato et al. 2006, N. Khalil et al. 2006, EPA USA 2000, Urban Plan Consulting & Engg. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2007)

14
CHAPTER 5
OBSERVATIONS
With reference to Table 6.1 in previous chapter, the results of this study are presented here in graphical
form. Results are represented by taking median of the data considering major factors of the study as
below:
1. Overall HRT

Figure 5.1 : Overall HRT (hours)

2. Removal Efficiencies

Figure 5.2 : Removal Efficiencies (%)

15
3. Area Requirement ( m2 /MLD)

Figure 5.3 : Area Requirement

4. Capital Cost

Figure 5.4 : Capital Cost

16
5. Biogas generation and bio-energy generation

Figure 5.5 : Biogas and Bio-energy generation

6. Total operation and maintenance costs

Figure 5.6 : Total operation and maintenance costs

17
 7. Total Annual Cost ( Rs. Lacs per MLD)

Figure 5.7 : Total Annual Costs (TAC)

Findings of this study:

1. The hydraulic retention time (HRT) for UASB reactor coupled with FPU is secong largest after
waste stabilization ponds. This indicates that this combination offers a stable biological
ecosystem due to longer mixing time. However, even longer mixing time is there in WSPs but
they require huge amounts of land, which is not feasible in congested cities like Delhi, Mumbai
etc.
2. By using UASB reactor under most ideal conditions the average values of BOD, COD and TSS
removal are 84%, 82.5% and 82.5% respectively whereas in Indian conditions the on-site values
of the same parameters are 66%, 61% and 65% respectively, which needs to be improved by
further hydrodynamic analysis of the same.
3. Average land requirement is minimum in case of Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) but high
capital cost and O&M costs overshadow this, again making UASB reactors the best available
option.
4. Biogas generation and bio-energy generation are found to be maximum in case ASP and TF.
Their capital cost are comparable with UASB reactors but their operation and maintenance costs
are approximately 3 times more than UASBRs.
5. The biogas generated can be used a fuel for running the plant itself as well as to transmit energy
for power generation if the production is in excess.

18
 6. In terms of total annual O & M costs WSP is the cheapest option but the second best option is
UASB reactor as it can also be used if less amount of land is available.
7. The Total Annual Cost is found to least in case of UASB reactors coupled with FPU after
considering a capital recovery factor of 0.124.

Hence, UASB with FPU or EAS gives the best proposition in India for treatment of sewage than other
technologies adopted in general practice.

19
CHAPTER 6

ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR

TREATING UNTREATED SEWAGE

After calculating the Total Annual Cost (TAC) of sewage treatment under various treatment
technologies, cost of treating the remaining amount can be calculated and minimum value out of
those values can be used as the optimum cost of sewage treatment.

As mentioned in Chapter 3,

Estimated sewage generation in country = 61948.0 MLD

Operational capacity of sewage treatment = 18883.2 MLD
Untreated sewage to be treated = 43064.8 MLD

Table 6.1 : Cost of treating untreated sewage

TECHNOLOGY TAC ( Rs Lac per MLD) UNTREATED SEWAGE (MLD) COST OF TREATING UNTREATED SEWAGE (Lacs/Day)
ASP 19.15 43064.8 824690.92
TF 15.6 43064.8 671810.88
WSP 24.3 43064.8 1046474.64
UASB + FPU 11.4 43064.8 490938.72
UASB + EAS 11.76 43064.8 506442.05
MBBR 17.33 43064.8 746312.99
SBR 18.5 43064.8 796698.81
MBR 32.24 43064.8 1388409.15

Hence, it can be seen that the most economical option for treatment of untreated sewage is UASB
reactor with post treatment using final polishing unit in order to meet the disposal standards of
the Indian agencies.

Besides being economical there are many other factors which appreciate the suitablity of UASB
reactors for the above purpose as discussed in previous chapters.

20
CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

Historical evolution of the application of the UASB based STPs in India and subsequent modifications
over the years with respect to the design, material of construction, operation and maintenance have given
a new dimension to this technology. Reduced capital costs, increased durability of the reactors and
simple operation and maintenance are some of the features of these modifications.

UASB efficiency can further be enhanced if adequate measures related to process operations are
taken. There is need to augment the existing plants, since more stringent standards for biological
quality cannot be met out by the existing plants.

Based on the life cycle cost evaluation of sewage treatment technologies, it can be concluded that UASB
in combination with adequate post-treatment option still offers best proposition compared to other
treatment systems in India. The potential for application of anaerobic treatment systems in the
developing world is enormous. The use of UASB reactors as a core unit can improve the sustainability
of sewage treatment system in these countries. Most of the developing countries have warm tropical and
subtropical climates that are conducive for higher biological activity and productivity, hence better
performance of anaerobic systems (UASB).

It is observed that all UASB based STPs are not capable of producing effluent that follows the
discharge standards in terms of BOD, COD and TSS removal. Minimum removal rates of BOD,
COD and TSS of 42-44% have been found in some plants despite of having post treatment
technologies. As we have seen in previous chapters that BOD, COD and TSS removal efficiencoes
can be achieved in ranges of 80%, but the same is not true here. This may be because of poor
operation and maintenance of STPs such as improper cleaning of screens at inlet and ponds, excess
sludge accumulation in reactors and ponds and hiring of persons with less knowledge of plant
operations.

The underperformance of UASB based STPs in achieving the regulatory standards set forth by the
MOEF & CC has been attributed to some of the following reasons by various researchers and reports:
 Actual Capacity of the plants exceeds the Design Capacity of the reactors.
 Mixing of Industrial Wastewater along with sewage affects the influent characteristics and design
flow for which the STPs are designed. In turn, the STPs may be subjected to shock organic and
hydraulic loading. The toxic and inhibitory compounds present in industrial wastewater can
affect the biological processes.
 Leakage of raising mains/pipelines.

21
  Improper operation and Maintenance involves non-functioning of bar screens, pumps, flow
measuring devices, Diesel Generator (DG) sets during power failure, gas collection system etc.

Recommendations based on Literature, Reports and personal opinion:

 The estimation of sewage generation is based on 80% of the fresh water supplied by theMunicipal
Corporations. However, the discharge may vary given the individual household supplies through
private wells and other sources.
 The performance evaluation of UASB based STPs are made on grab sampling done one time.
However data based on composite sampling would be more realistic. Studies may be carried out
under different seasons
 Need for trained and experienced workers to analyze the treatment performance at defined time
intervals
 UASBs are vulnerable to shock loads, shock temperature, organic loading rate, hydraulic loading
rate etc. Equalization tanks may be installed to overcome such shock loads.
 Operational guidelines should be strictly followed
 Periodic Sludge Profiling of UASB reactor as a Sludge Management tool can enhance UASB
performance
 Upgradation of STP facilities and physical improvement of FPUs by adding an aerator and
extending retention time. UASB with ASP is considered the most suitable combination as it can
achieve 85-95% removal rates
 Since the STPs vary in both size and effluent quality, a parameter such as Effluent Quality Index
(EQI) may be generated to evaluate the STPs on a common platform.

To optimize the performance of STPs, the UASB reactors should be maintained and operated properly.
Maximum removal rates are found in some plants which are in combination with post treatment facilities
such as facultative aerated lagoons, aeration tanks and polishing ponds. While most of the STPs are
evaluated for previous discharge standards, they should be re-evaluated for current standards and
necessary measures be taken.

22
REFERENCES
1. A. Majumder, [online] Available: http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/arunabha.pdf

2. P. F. F. Cavalcanti, A.Van Haandel, G. Lettinga, Water Sci. and Technology 44 (4), 237-245 (2001)

3. Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB), [Online] Available: http://cpcb.nic.in/newitems/12.pdf (2005,

November)

4. Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) (Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India), [online]
Available: http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_195_STP_REPORT.pdf (2013)

5. Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) (Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India) , [online]
Available:http://nrcd.nic.in/writereaddata/FileUpload/NewItem_210_Inventorization_of_ Sewage-
Treatment_Plant.pdf (2015, March)

6. Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB), Bulletin, 1 [online], Available:

http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/Latest/Latest_123_SUMMARY_BOOK_FS.pdf (2016, July)

7. C. D. L. Chernicharo, Reviews in Environ. Sci. and Bio/Technol 5 (1), 73-92 (2006)

8. C. D. L. Chernicharo, P.G.S. Almeida, Sustainable Solutions for Small Water and Wastewater Treatment
Systems, Spain, (2010)
9. C. D. L. Chernicharo, J. B. van Lier, A. Noyola, T.B. Ribeiro, Reviews in Environ. Sci. and Bio/Technol
14 (4), 649-679 (2015)

10. N. Khalil, R. Sinha, A.K. Raghav,A.K. Mittal, IWTC 12, 1411-1427 (2008)

11. A. A. Khan, R. Z. Gaur, V. K. Tayagi, A. Kursheed, B. Lew, I. Mehrotra, A. A. Kazmi, Resources,

Conservation and Recycling 55, 1232-1251 (2011)

12. Operation and Maintenance Manual for 19.35MLD Sewage Treatment Plant at Lalpani, Shimla, MWH
India Pvt. Ltd.

13. N. Sato, T. Okubo, T. Onodera, A. Ohashi and H. Harada, J. Envir. Mgmt. 80, 198-207 (2006)

23
14. L. Sasse, Bremen, Bremen Overseas Reasearch and Development Association (BORDA) (1998)

15. J. B. Van Lier, A. Vashi, J. Van Der Lubbe, B. Heffernan, H. Fang, Anaerobic sewage treatment using
UASB reactors: engineering and operational aspect (Imperial College Press, London, UK, 2010)

16. MoEF, (1995), Evaluation of Ganga Action Plan National River Conservation
Directorate, Government of India, New Delhi.

17. MoEF, (2005, 2006), Management information system, Technical Report, National River
Conservation Directorate, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, India. Okubo T.,
Kirishima Y., Ohashi A., Harada H., (2004), Evaluation of full-scale UASB+DHS combined
system for sewage treatment with minimum energy requirement in India. Proceedings of
the 38th Annual Conference of JSWE, Sapporo (Japan), 229.

18. Alvarez, J.A., I. Ruiz, M. Gomez, J. Presas and M. Soto, 2006. Start-up alternatives and performance
of an UASB pilot plant treating diluted municipal wastewater at low temperature. Bioresource Technology,
97, 1640-1649.

19. Kalyushnyi, V., V.V Fedorovich, and P.Lens, 2006. Dispersed plug flow model for upflow anaerobic
sludge bed reactors with focus on granular sludge dynamics. Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology,
33, 221-237.

20. Leitão, R., 2004. Robustness of UASB reactor treating sewage under tropical conditions. Thesis
doctoral. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.

21.Lettinga, G.A., F.M.Van Velsen, S.W.Hobma, W.J.Zeeuw and A.Klapwijk, 1980. Use of the Up flow
Sludge Blanket (USB) Reactor Concept for Biological Wastewater Treatment. Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, 22, 699-734.

22. Romero, J.A, 1999. Tratamiento de aguas residuales por lagunas de estabilización. 3ª Edición. Editorial
escuela colombiana de Ingeniería, Alfaomega, México

23. Tchobanoglous G., F.Burton and H.Stensel, 2003. Wastewater engineering. Treatment and reuse.
Metcalf & Eddy, 4th edition, USA.

24