See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/6854882

Economic evaluation of sewage treatment processes in India

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Management · October 2007

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.019 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

66 5,321

6 authors, including:

Tsutomu Okubo Takashi Onodera

National Institute of Technology, Kisarazu College, Japan National Institute for Environmental Studies
40 PUBLICATIONS   515 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   979 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lalit Agrawal Hideki Harada

Swing Corporation Tokyo Tohoku University
7 PUBLICATIONS   274 CITATIONS    302 PUBLICATIONS   11,209 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project to develop water quality improvement and assessment methods for aquatic environment conservation View project

SATREPS, UASB - DHS Integrated System ━ A Sustainable Sewage Treatment TechnologyRestore the Holy Rivers by Japanese Environmental Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lalit Agrawal on 30 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Economic evaluation of sewage treatment processes in India

Nobuyuki Satoa,, Tsutomu Okuboa, Takashi Onoderaa, Lalit K. Agrawalb,
Akiyoshi Ohashia, Hideki Haradaa
a
Department of Environmental Systems Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology, 1603-1 Kamitomioka, Nagaoka, Niigata 940-2188, Japan
b
Tokyo Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd., 3-7-4 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo 100-0013, Japan
Received 22 December 2005; received in revised form 20 June 2006; accepted 21 June 2006
Available online 24 August 2006

Abstract

This paper evaluates the total annual cost including capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the up-flow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) and waste stabilization pond (WSP) systems operated in India. It also compares UASB and WSP systems with
the activated sludge process (ASP) and biological aerated filter (BAF) systems in terms of total annual cost and chemical oxygen demand
(COD) removal cost by assuming various annual interest rates and land prices. It was found that the relationship between capital and
O&M costs per unit size of a UASB or WSP system and its treatment capacity can be established by a first-order equation. The relation
between the cost of organic removal and capital or O&M cost for various sewage treatment systems at various annual interest rates
revealed that, for the Indian context, UASB could be the most suitable option in terms of expenses and treatment efficiency.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction However, it may be possible to understand the general

Sewage treatment processes that can achieve an effluent
standard at minimal cost are generally preferred by any
country, especially developing countries. The main ex-
penses are capital cost, operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs, and the procurement of land, which are important
parameters for selecting an appropriate treatment system.
A comparison between different treatment processes based
on available, reliable sources could simplify the selection
procedure. In addition, development of standard costs for
the processes could form a platform for planning, budget-
ing, and crosschecking the treatment processes under
consideration. However, the cost of a sewage treatment
process varies significantly depending on the time frame
and location. Moreover, the configuration of any similar
type of treatment process may vary according to the size of
the local community or climatic conditions of the area,
which in turn affects cost. These factors considerably affect
the task of standardizing the cost of any process.
Consequently, it is difficult to define a given process with
marginal cost, which is important for developing countries.
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +81 258 47 9653.
E-mail address: satonob@s8.dion.ne.jp (N. Sato).
trend of such costs as estimated by several researchers,
especially for developing countries. Table 1 summarizes the
capital, O&M costs, and land requirements for up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), waste stabilization pond
(WSP), and activated sludge process (ASP) treatment
systems. These costs and land requirements are often
expressed by the following equation (Balmer and Matts-
son, 1994; JSWA, 1999; JSWA, 2001; Li, 1987; Li et al.,
1990; Tsagarakis et al., 2003):
Cost per unit volume ¼ a  ðsizeÞb , (1)
where a, b are the constants.
The value of ‘‘a’’ varies when substituting ‘‘size’’ with a
population equivalent or treatment volume, and depending
on the type of currency to be expressed. The variation of
cost per unit volume by size for a process is indicated by the
constant ‘‘b’’. Table 1 describes the scale merit of ASP. For
example, the Japan Sewage Works Association reported a
cost model of ASP in which the values of ‘‘b’’ are 0.28 for
capital and 0.19 for O&M cost (JSWA, 2001). Balmer
and Mattsson (1994) estimated the value of ‘‘b’’ as 0.3 for
O&M cost according to 20 STPs treated by an ASP system
in Sweden.

0301-4797/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.06.019
 448
Table 1
Summary of capital and annual O&M cost, and land requirement for UASB, WSP, and ASP

Process Treatment volume Unit Capital costa Unit Land Unit Annual O&M Unit Country Reference Remarks
requirement cost

UASB 36,000 m3/d 441 US$/m3/d 14 m2/m3/d 20 US$/ India Tare et al. (2003) Tannery effluent composed.
m3/d US$1 ¼ 48.27 Rs. (2002/03)
UASB+pond 20,000–400,000 m3/d 34.7–45.6 US$/m3/d 1.70–1.98 m2/m3/d India Binnie Thames Water
(1996)

N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460

UASB+pond 68.5–85.6 US$/m3/d 1.1–1.7 m2/m3/d India Arceivala (1998) US$1 ¼ 32.427 Rs. (ave.
1995)
UASB 50,000 PE 17.8 US$/PE 0.12 m2/PE 0.53 US$/ Egypt Schellinkhout (1993) Capital cost icludes land.
PE US$1 ¼ 3.37 LE (December
1993)
UASB+pond 50,000 PE 27.9 US$/PE 0.64 m2/PE 0.53 US$/ Egypt Schellinkhout (1993) Capital cost icludes land.
PE US$1 ¼ 3.37 LE (December

ARTICLE IN PRESS
1993)
UASB+trickling 50,000 PE 31.5 US$/PE 0.22 m2/PE 0.71 US$/ Egypt Schellinkhout (1993) Capital cost icludes land.
filter PE US$1 ¼ 3.37 LE (Dec 1993)
WSP 30,000 m3/d 167 US$/m3/d 15.3 m2/m3/d 1.67 US$/ Yemen Arthur (1983)
m3/d
WSP 50,000 PE 35.6 US$/PE 1.7 m2/PE 0.53 US$/ Egypt Schellinkhout (1993) Capital cost icludes land.
PE US$1 ¼ 3.37 LE (Dec 1993)
WSP 20,000–400,000 m3/d 12.4–18.0 US$/m3/d 12.5–14.0 m2/m3/d India Binnie Thames Water,
1996
3 2 3
WSP 25.7–34.3 US$/m /d 5.6–15.6 m /m /d India Arceivala (1998) US$1 ¼ 32.427 Rs (ave. 1995)
ASP 2150 m3/d 186 US$/m3/d 9.5 m2/m3/d 47 US$/ India Tare et al. (2003) Tannery effluent composed.
m3/d US$1 ¼ 48.27 Rs (2002/03)
ASP 20,000–400,000 m3/d 50.0–60.8 US$/m3/d 0.73–1.01 m2/m3/d India Binnie Thames Water,
1996
ASP 102.8–119.9 US$/m3/d 1.1–1.4 m2/m3/d India Arceivala (1998) US$1 ¼ 32.427 Rs (ave. 1995)
ASP 638  Q0.219 US$/m3/d China Li (1987)
ASP 34.3  Q0.332 m2/m3/d China Li et al. (1990)
ASP 120,000–540,000 PE 4.05  PE0.228 m2/PE Greece Tsagarakis et al. (2003)
ASP 40,000–180,000 PE 159.4  PE0.046 US$/PE Greece Tsagarakis et al. (2003)
ASP 40,000–540,000 PE 212  PE0.328 US$/ Greece Tsagarakis et al. (2003)
PE
ASP 4 ¼ 10,000 m3/d 49,630  Q0.277 US$/m3/d 578  Q0.190 US$/ Japan JSWA (2001) US$1 ¼ 127.36 JP yen
m3/d (December 2001)
ASP 10,000–500,000 m3/d 212  Q0.514 m2/m3/d Japan JSWA (1999) US$1 ¼ 102.68 JP yen
(December 1999)
ASP 7000–650,000 PE 313  PE0.3 US$/ Sweeden Balmer and Mattsson US$1 ¼ 8 SEK (July 1993)
PE (1994)

Q ¼ treatment volume, PE ¼ population equivalent.

a
Capital cost does not include land cost unless it mentions in the remarks.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460 449

In developing countries such as India, the rate of sewage

service utilization is generally still very low. However, India
is one of the leading countries in terms of the amount of
municipal sewage volume treated by the UASB process.
UASB has been recognized as the most cost effective and
suitable sewage treatment process considering the environ-
mental requirements in India. As a result, it represents the
core sewage treatment technology, accounting for 80% of
the total treatment capacity (743,000 m3/d) targeted by the
national environment project under the Yamuna Action
Plan (YAP). The evaluation of such cost data is very useful
not only for India, but also for other developing countries
that expect to expand the area of sewage service. This
paper evaluates the total annual cost including capital and
O&M costs, and organic matter removal cost on a life cycle
basis for such low-cost sewage treatment processes as
UASB and WSP, based on the assumption of various
annual interest rates and land prices. All STPs investigated
were constructed during YAP Phase I.

2. Methodology

Data on capital and O&M costs were collected from

UASB (14 STPs, at 10,000 to 78,000 m3/d) and WSP
(11 STPs, at 1000 to 32,500 m3/d) systems located within
the Yamuna River basin. Among these STPs, the authors
conducted the sampling and analysis of water quality at
five STPs for UASB and four STPs for WSP. Fig. 1 shows
the locations of the STPs investigated for cost analysis,
with ‘‘U1–U14’’ denoting UASB and ‘‘W1–W11’’ denoting
WSP. Tables 2 and 3 describe the details of each STP.
Water quality tests were conducted at STPs of ‘‘U1, U3,
U12, U13, U14’’ and ‘‘W8, W9, W10’’.
2.1. Process description
2.1.1. Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
A screen and a grit chamber are typical components that
are installed before a UASB reactor. Raw sewage flows
through the screen and grit chamber to the UASB reactor.
The UASB system generally requires post-treatment
because the effluent usually exceeds the maximum permis-
sible level defined by the effluent standards of most
developing countries, including India. Polishing ponds or
so-called final polishing units (FPUs) are generally
implemented under the YAP as a simple and low cost
means of post-treatment for the UASB system. The UASB
reactor is designed with a hydraulic retention time (HRT)
of 8–11 h for a pond depth of 4.6–6.1 m. Likewise, an HRT
of 1.0–1.5 d has also been designated for a pond depth of
1.3–2.0 m (see Table 2).
2.1.2. Waste stabilization pond (WSP)
The WSP system is designed as a series of three ponds
(anaerobic, facultative, and maturation). Organic matter is
mainly removed in the anaerobic pond. In the facultative
pond, much less organic matter is removed, resulting in the
Fig. 1. Location of investigated STPs expressed with treatment process.
growth of algae. The primary function of the maturation
pond is removing pathogens and nutrients. Small amounts
of BOD are also removed. HRT for the anaerobic,
facultative, and maturation pond is designed at 1–2, 3–9,
and 2–16 d, respectively (see Table 3).
2.2. Analysis
2.2.1. Data collection
Capital and O&M costs, and the land area needed for
STPs were collected from various reports, mainly issued by
the national and local governments in India. Moreover,
first-hand data was collected by directly interviewing STP
employees to understand the current status of O&M,
including staffing. For investigating water quality, influent
and effluent at STPs were sampled, with necessary
parameters analyzed.
2.2.2. Data process and definition of each cost
Cost was evaluated as the total annual cost consisting of
capital, O&M, and cost of land. Capital cost included the
construction of a screen, grit chamber, wastewater treat-
ment facility, sludge treatment facility, administrative
offices, and other necessary facilities at STPs. O&M costs
include those for manpower, power, repair, and chemicals.
 450
Table 2
Dimension and result of water quality investigation for UASB STPs

STPa Town Capacity UASB FPU Water quality investigation

N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460

(m3/d)
L  W  D (m) No of Volume HRT (h) L  W  D (m) No of Volume HRT (d) Temp CODin CODeff Removal
reactor (m3) pond (m3) (sewage) (mg/L) (mg/L) rate (%)
(1C)

U1 Panipat 10,000 16  24  4.58 2 3500 8.4 128  64  1.25 1 10,200 1.0 18.6 985 446 55
U2 Yamuna 10,000 16  24  4.58 2 3500 8.4 126.5  63  1.25 1 10,000 1.0

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Nagar
U3 Yamuna 25,000 40  24  4.58 2 8800 8.4 222  90  1.25 1 25,000 1.0 18.4 702 135 81
Nagar
U4 Gurgaon 30,000 32  24  4.58 3 10,600 8.5 220  110  1.25 1 30,300 1.0
U5 Sonepat 30,000 32  24  4.58 3 10,600 8.5 220  110  1.25 1 30,300 1.0
U6 Noida 34,000 24  24  5.9 4 13,600 9.6 237.4  55.1  1.3 2 34,000 1.0
U7 Panipat 35,000 32  24  4.58 1 12,300 8.4 255  110  1.25 1 35,100 1.0
40  24  4.58 2
U8 Saharanpur 38,000 24  28  6.10 4 16,400 10.4 12,700 m2  1.50 m 2 38,100 1.0
U9 Karnal 40,000 32  24  4.58 4 14,100 8.5 241  135  1.25 1 40,700 1.0
U10 Faridabad 45,000 32  24  4.58 2 15,800 8.4 270  135  1.25 1 45,600 1.0
40  24  4.58 2
U11 Faridabad 50,000 40  24  4.58 4 17,600 8.4 320  125  1.25 1 50,000 1.0
U12 Ghaziabad 56,000 32  32  6.10 4 25,000 10.7 180  120  2.00 2 86,400 1.5 21.7 418 134 68
U13 Ghaziabad 70,000 40  32  6.10 4 31,200 10.7 190  144  1.75 2 95,800 1.4 21.2 829 288 65
U14 Agra 78,000 24  40  5.25 6 30,200 9.3 214  93  1.60 1 97,200 1.2 18.8 762 222 71
130  160  1.60 1
123  163  1.60 1

Source: On-site survey.

a
Is identical to STPs in Fig. 1.
Table 3
Dimension and result of water quality investigation for WSP STPs

N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460

STPa Town Capacity Anaerobic pond Facultative pond Maturation pond Water quality investigation
(m3/d)
L  W  D (m) No of Volume HRT (d) L  W  D (m) No of Volume HRT (d) L  W  D (m) No of Volume HRT (d) Temp CODin CODeff COD
ponds (m3) ponds (m3) ponds (m3) (sewage) (mg/L) (mg/L) removal
(1C) (%)

W1 Chhachhrauli 1000 25.0  10.0  4.0 1 1000 1.0 112.0  44.3  1.0 1 5000 5.0 112.0  34.5  1.0 4 15,500 15.5
W2 Radaur 1000 25.0  10.0  4.0 1 1000 1.0 112.0  44.3  1.0 1 5000 5.0 112.0  34.5  1.0 4 15,500 15.5

ARTICLE IN PRESS
W3 Agra 2250 15  25  3.0 2 2300 1.0 55  34  1.5 4 11,200 5.0 54  35  1.5 2 5700 2.5
W4 Gharaunda 3000 29.8  10.8  4.0 2 2600 0.9 150.0  50.0  1.0 2 15,000 5.0 110.5  50.5  1.0 8 44,600 14.9
W5 Vridavan 4000 16  39  3.5 2 4400 1.1 91  41  1.3 4 19,400 4.9 91  41  1.3 2 9700 2.4
W6 Karnal 8000 41.3  26.3  4.0 2 8700 1.1 99.3  162.4  1.3 2 41,900 5.2 92.0  162.0  1.3 1 40,000 5.0
98.0  162.0  1.3 1
W7 Palwal 9000 25.0  45.0  4.0 2 9000 1.0 120  198  1.5 2 71,300 7.9 85  275  1.5 3 105,200 11.7
W8 Etawah 10,000 1,500 m2  4.0 m 1 10,400 1.0 11,100 m2  1.5 m 1 34,200 3.4 5150 m2  1.5 m 1 16,500 1.7 22.8 457 157 66
5300 m2  1.5 m 1
1100 m2  4.0 m 1 6400 m2  1.5 m 1 5860 m2  1.5 m 1
W9 Mathura 13,500 81  40  4.4 2 28,500 2.1 13,880 m2  1.5 m 4 83,300 6.2 13,880 m2  1.5 m 2 41,600 3.1 20.9 996 166 83
W10 Mathura 14,500 85  43  4.1 2 30,000 2.1 122  80  1.5 4 58,600 4.0 122  80  1.5 2 29,300 2.0 20.7 458 191 58
W11 Muzaffar 32,500 Not existed — — — 100,000 m2  1.5 m 2 300,000 9.2 55,000 m2  1.1 m 2 121,000 3.7
Nagar

Source: On-site survey.

a
Is identical to STPs in Fig. 1.

451
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
452 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460

Table 4
Periodical Wholesale Prices Index in India (WPI ¼ 100 in Fiscal Year 1993–94)

Year WPI Year WPI Year WPI

1991–92 83.9 1996–97 112.6 2001–02 161.3

1992–93 92.3 1997–98 132.8 2002–03 166.8
1993–94 100.0 1998–99 140.7
1994–95 112.6 1999–00 145.3
1995–96 112.6 2000–01 155.7

Source: Central Statistical Organisation, 1999; Central Statistical Organisation, 2004.

Power cost was calculated at a rate of 4.8 Rs/kWh. Repair

costs for civil work, mechanical and electrical equipment
are estimated annually as a certain percentage multiplied
by capital cost. The annual repair cost for civil work was
calculated at 0.5% and 0.2% of the capital cost for UASB
and WSP, respectively. Likewise, the annual repair cost for
mechanical and electrical equipment was calculated at 3%
of the capital cost. In addition, it was assumed that
mechanical and electrical equipment were replaced every 7
years. This replacement cost was included in the repair
cost. The service life of STPs was estimated at 35 years,
which served as the period for life cycle cost (JICA, 2005).
All investigated STPs were designed and constructed
between fiscal years 1995–1996 and 2001–2002. In order
to normalize the pricing of goods and labor, the wholesale
prices index (WPI) was applied to calculate the costs of all
years up to 2002–2003 (see Table 4). After price conver-
sion, the total annual cost was calculated by following
equations: Total annual cost
Fig. 2. Capital cost per unit treatment volume for UASB and WSP.
TAC ¼ CRF  IC þ OMC; (2) Source: JICA, 2005; PHED, 1995a–i, 1998, 1999a, b, 2000a, b; UPJN,
1997a, b, 1998, 1999, 2000a–f, 2001.
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, chemicals): y ¼ 474x0:32 for WSP; (5)
t
ið1 þ iÞ
CRF ¼ , (3) where y is the capital cost per unit volume, US$/m3/d and x
ð1 þ iÞt  1 the treatment volume, m3/d.
where i is the interest rate and t the economic life. Regarding the overall result, the capital cost for UASB is
The costs were converted to US dollars at an exchange higher than that for WSP. Thus, the cost for WSP becomes
rate of Rs. 48.27 (an average for the years 2002–2003) one-third of that for UASB at a treatment capacity of
(Madras Consultancy Group, 2004). 10,000 m3/d, and decreases by half with an increase in
treatment volume from 1000–10,000 m3/d. Likewise, for
3. Results and discussion UASB, the cost is reduced by one-third with an increase in
treatment volume from 10,000–70,000 m3/d. Some STPs
3.1. Total annual cost of UASB and WSP show large deviations from the equation indicated in the
figure. The authors visited one of these largely deviated
3.1.1. Capital cost STPs with WSP capacity of 10,000 m3/d, the capital cost
Fig. 2 shows the relationship between capital cost and for which was 43.95 US$/m3/d. This STP was located on
the treatment volume of UASB and WSP systems. Since hilly terrain. Much work and budget expenditures were
Eq. (1) is used by many researchers as a general expression expended for preparing the land, which increased the
between the cost and treatment volume, it is also applied in capital cost.
this study. The relation then appears as According to the Urban Environmental Services Master
Plan for Lucknow, India (1996–2021), the cost for the
y ¼ 494x0:20 for UASB; (4) UASB system was estimated as 51–68 US$/m3/d (with price
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460
converted based on the years 2002–2003) for a treatment
volume ranging from 20,000–400,000 m3/d, respectively
(Binnie Thames Water, 1996). These values were very
similar to those derived from Eq. (4). For the WSP system,
the cost was reported as 18–27 US$/m3/d (with price
converted for the years 2002–03) for a treatment volume
ranging from 20,000 to 400,000 m3/d, respectively (Binnie
Thames Water, 1996). This was 24% more expensive than
the value computed from this study based on a treatment
volume of 20,000 m3/d. The reason for such increase
cannot be precisely identified in this study. However, the
difference could be explained by taking certain considera-
tions into account. This cost was determined during the
master plan in order to give clients or funding agencies a
rough estimate of total project cost. This may be one of the
main reasons for such a deviation.
Schellinkhout (1993) reported the capital cost of a UASB
system (UASB+pond) at a treatment volume of 8000 m3/d
(assuming sewage production of 0.16 m3/PE/d) in Egypt.
The capital cost was estimated as 290 US$/m3/d (with price
converted based on the years 2002–2003). It is more
expensive than the STPs in this study even after considering
GDP (per capita) in Egypt (US$3950) and India (US$2892)
(UNDP, 2005). The reason is not clear, but may imply
that the competition between companies reduces the
capital cost given the experience with the UASB system
and high prospects of the system in India. According to
Arceivala (1998), the capital cost of WSP in India is
25.7–34.3 US$/m3/d. Our investigation matched Arceiva-
la’s finding, which may be considered as the standard cost
of WSP in India.
3.1.2. Annual O&M cost
Fig. 3 shows the relationship between annual O&M cost
and the treatment volume for UASB and WSP systems.
Fig. 3. Annual O&M cost per unit treatment volume for UASB and WSP.
453
The replacement of mechanical and electrical equipment
was calculated based on an annual interest rate of 5%. For
this study, Eq. (1) appears as
y ¼ 457x0:49 for UASB; (6)
y ¼ 995x0:71 for WSP; (7)
where y is the annual O&M cost per unit volume, US$/m3/
d and x the treatment volume, m3/d.
The cost decreases by one-half from 10,000 to 50,000 m3/
d for UASB, and by one-fifth from 1000 to 10,000 m3/d for
WSP. At 20,000 m3/d, the cost for UASB was four times
higher than that for WSP. The cost for UASB and WSP
systems was reported as a constant ratio of 1.4:1.0,
respectively, between a treatment volume from 20,000 to
400,000 m3/d (Binnie Thames Water, 1996). In this study,
the cost for UASB appeared much greater than that for
WSP. According to our site investigation, nearly all STPs
did not use biogas for power generation due to the poor
maintenance of gas generators. Therefore, this paper
ignored energy recovery through gas, which increases the
cost for UASB.
Schellinkhout (1993) reported the annual O&M cost of a
UASB system (UASB+pond) and WSP at a treatment
volume of 8000 m3/d (assuming sewage production of
0.16 m3/PE/d) in Egypt. The annual O&M cost for both
systems was estimated as 5.57 US$/m3/d (with price
converted based on the years 2002–2003). It is similar to
that of the investigated STPs for the UASB. However, the
cost of WSP in Egypt is much more expensive than found
in this study.
3.1.3. Land requirement
Fig. 4 shows how the land requirement was expressed
using a logarithm of X and Y axes. In addition to
expressing capital and annual O&M costs, Eq. (1) expresses
Fig. 4. Land requirement per unit treatment volume for UASB and WSP.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
454 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460

the land requirement as follows:

y ¼ 10:4x0:12 for UASB; (8)

y ¼ 326x0:37 for WSP; (9)

2 3
where y is the land requirement, m per m /d and x the
treatment volume, m3/d.
The land area for a UASB system was determined to be
between 2.0 and 5.1 m2/m3/d. Some authors have reported
that the land requirements for this system were 1.1–2.0 m2/
m3/d (Binnie Thames Water, 1996; Arceivala, 1998) and
4.0 m2/m3/d (Schellinkhout, 1993). The main facilities of
STPs with the UASB system are the UASB reactor, pond,
and drying beds for sludge treatment, facilities that occupy
a large portion of the total area. Generally, the land
occupied by these facilities increases in proportion to
treatment volume. In other words, the land requirement
per unit treatment volume for UASB is a nearly constant
value regardless of time frame and location. Thus, the
differences described above may arise from the land
allocation for other facilities such as plantations or
passages. For the WSP system, the land requirement is
Fig. 5. Detail of total annual cost per unit volume for UASB and WSP.
30.1 m2/ m3/d for a treatment volume of 1000 m3/d,
and 7.0–19.1 m2/m3/d for a treatment volume of
2250–32,500 m3/d. The WSP system is usually designed as cost. The price of land in towns surrounding Delhi could be
a series of simple ponds. Therefore, the total pond area about 20–40 US$/m2. In that case, the cost of land
alone remains almost constant when the same design increases 10–20 times that shown in the figure. Thus, it is
factors are applied (Mara, 1997). However, an STP must clearly evident that the price of land has more impact on
include other facilities, such as an administrative building, WSP than on UASB. Since 1994, India’s GDP has
warehouse, and other structures. The land area for these registered a 4.4–8.5% annual increase. Moreover, the
facilities does not increase significantly with an increase in GDP is projected to increase by 7–8% annually over the
treatment volume. Therefore, the land requirement per unit next 10 years (Japan India Business Club, 2005). The price
volume for small-scale STPs is larger than that for large- of land has also been rising every year. Consequently,
scale STPs (see Fig. 4). securing land in advance is a key factor in reducing the
total annual cost.
3.1.4. Total annual cost
Fig. 5 gives an overview of the total annual cost 3.2. Comparison with other processes operated in Delhi
consisting of capital and O&M costs. The O&M cost is
categorized as covering power, manpower, repair, and This section compares the UASB and WSP systems
chemicals. The costs are separately summarized at treat- mentioned with the ASP (72,000 m3/d) and Biological
ment volumes of 0–5000, 6000–25,000, 26,000–50,000, and Aerated Filter (BAF) (10,000 m3/d) systems operated in
51,000–100,000 m3/d. The numbers of STPs evaluated are Delhi. The ASP system in India is very similar to those
indicated at the top of the bar in the figure. Likewise, the employed in several other countries (see Fig. 6). In the
parenthesized value indicates the standard deviation in aeration tank, a fixed-platform, low-speed aerator
total annual cost excluding the cost of land. A land price (a typical surface mechanical aerator) is operated. Sludge
of 2 US$/m2 (in rural areas) and an annual interest is treated by a thickener, sludge digestion, and drying beds.
rate of 5% were assumed for calculation purposes. Based Conversely, the BAF is similar to high-rate sand filters
on these assumptions, the total annual cost was estimated except that air is continually discharged from the lower
at 6.16–9.67 US$/m3/d for the UASB system, and part of the filter and a relatively coarse medium is used. In
2.26–9.90 US$/m3/d for the WSP system. The figure also the BAF system, wastewater has a down-flow or up-flow
shows that the main component of total annual cost for pattern (Rogalla et al., 1990; Pujol et al., 1992). The
UASB is capital cost, accounting for 46% to 57%. average efficiency of both types of flow is reported to be
Conversely, for WSP, the cost of manpower is the major about 70% in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD)
component, accounting for up to 43% for a treatment removal (Canler and Perret, 1994). In India, the up-flow
volume of 0–5000 m3/d. However, for a treatment volume type of BAF has been installed and operated. As
of 6000–50,000 m3/d, the capital cost becomes the main shown in Fig. 6, raw sewage flows through the screen
component, accounting for 34% to 38% of the total annual and grit chamber to a reactor-clarifier, where alum and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460
Fig. 6. Process flow for ASP and BAF in this study.
polyelectrolyte are dosed to enhance coagulation and
flocculation. After passing the reactor-clarifier, sewage
flows to the BAF. The filter is an up-flow reactor equipped
with a special medium (BioliteTM) and diffuser (Oxa-
zurTM). The time required for treating raw sewage as
influent until being discharged into a canal or river as final
effluent is only 2.0–2.5 h.
3.2.1. Capital cost
The capital costs for the ASP (72,000 m3/d) and BAF
(10,000 m3/d) systems are estimated at 54.51 and
132.38 US$/m3/d, respectively (JICA, 2005). The constant
‘‘b’’ in Eq. (1) was reported as 0.22 and 0.28 by Li
(1987) and JSWA (2001), respectively, as shown in Table 1.
When these values are applied, the capital cost for ASP
shows a very similar result as that of the UASB system
(see Fig. 2). The BAF system was found to be 1.7 times
more expensive than UASB at a treatment volume of
10,000 m3/d. By applying Eq. (1) to the capital cost of BAF
and assuming constant ‘‘b’’ as being greater than 0.44,
the capital cost could be expressed in the order of
BAF4UASB and ASP4WSP at a treatment volume of
less than 72,000 m3/d.
3.2.2. Annual O&M cost
The annual O&M cost for the ASP (72,000 m3/d) and
BAF (10,000 m3/d) systems is estimated at 11.95 and
22.66 US$/m3/d, respectively, assuming an annual interest
rate of 5% (JICA, 2005). The cost for ASP is six times
higher than that for UASB for a treatment volume less
than 72,000 m3/d (see Fig. 3). Conversely, the cost for
BAF will be four times and 16 times higher than that of
UASB and WSP, respectively, at a treatment volume of
10,000 m3/d. The constant ‘‘b’’ for ASP in Eq. (1) is
reported as 0.19 to 0.33 (Tsagarakis et al., 2003; JSWA,
2001; Balmer and Mattsson, 1994). By applying constant
‘‘b’’ greater than 0.32 to Eq. (1) for BAF in addition to
the reported data for ASP, the annual O&M cost at a
455
treatment volume less than 72,000 m3/d could be expressed
in the order of BAF4ASP4UASB4WSP.
3.2.3. Land requirement
The land requirement for the ASP (72,000 m3/d) system
is 1.46 m2/m3/d, which is about half that for the UASB
system based on Eq. (8) (see Fig. 4) (JICA, 2005). For the
BAF system, only 2–2.5 h of treatment time (HRT) are
required to treat raw sewage. Consequently, the land
requirement for BAF (10,000 m3/d) is only 0.4 m2/m3/d,
which is the lowest among all processes (JICA, 2005). If the
land requirement of WSP is considered as 1.00, the land
requirements of BAF and UASB are estimated as 0.04 and
0.32, respectively, based on Eqs. (8) and (9).
3.2.4. Economic evaluation
The total annual cost and organic removal cost for the
UASB, WSP, ASP, and BAF systems, as mentioned above,
were compared with various annual interest rates of 5, 10,
and 15%. The land prices used were 2, 20, and 60 US$/m2
in order to cover urban to rural areas of India for
comparison. The processes were evaluated at treatment
volumes of 6000–25,000 and 51,000–100,000 m3/d. The
organic removal cost was represented by COD. Table 5
summarizes the water quality investigation expressed in
Tables 2 and 3, and the investigation of ASP and BAF. The
COD value of influent ranged from 532 to 844 mg/L.
Likewise, the COD value of effluent ranged from 20 to
291 mg/L. The removal rate was nearly 70% for UASB and
WSP, and over 90% for ASP and BAF.
Fig. 7 shows the total annual cost for the UASB,
WSP, and BAF systems at a treatment volume of
6000–25,000 m3/d. The intersection of the curves for
UASB, WSP, and BAF in Fig. 7 is shown in Table 6 (land
price) and Table 7 (annual interest rate). As shown in Table
6, WSP becomes more expensive than UASB when the land
price exceeds 11.92 US$/m2 at an annual interest rate of
5%. Likewise, when the land price exceeds 40.65 US$/m2 at
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
456 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460

Table 5
COD removal efficiency of STPs processed by UASB, WSP, ASP, and BAF

Process Treatment volume (m3/d) No of STPs Influent (mg/L) COD effluent (mg/L) Removal rate (%)

UASB 6000–25,000 2 844 (7142) 291 (7156) 68 (713)

UASB 51,000–100,000 3 670 (7180) 215 (763) 68 (72)
WSP 6000–25,000 3 637 (7254) 171 (714) 69 (711)
ASP 51,000–100,000 1 696 45 94
BAF 6000–25,000 1 532 20 96

Fig. 7. Total annual cost (TAC) and COD removal cost for UASB, WSP, and BAF at a treatment volume of 6000–25,000 m3/d.

an annual interest rate of 5%, the total annual cost for
WSP becomes greater than that for BAF. Since the land
requirement is placed in the order of WSP4UASB4BAF,
the effect of land price is also placed in the order of
WSP4UASB4BAF as shown in Fig. 7. Since the total
annual cost for WSP is largely dictated by land price, WSP
is significantly affected by the annual interest rate as well.
The thin line in Fig. 7 indicates the COD removal cost.
When the land price exceeds 7.71 US$/m2 at an annual
interest rate of 5%, the COD removal cost of WSP
becomes greater than that of UASB. Likewise, WSP
becomes more expensive than BAF when the land price
exceeds 39.51 US$/m2. Therefore, the total annual cost and
the COD removal cost of UASB, WSP, and BAF show
similar tendencies in terms of the points of intersection.
Fig. 8 shows the total annual cost and COD removal
cost for UASB and ASP systems at a treatment volume of
51,000–100,000 m3/d. It also shows a nearly parallel slope
in the curves for the total annual cost for UASB and ASP,
especially for the lower annual interest rate. The total
annual cost for ASP is greater than that for UASB at the
assumed limits. However, the COD removal cost shows a
different tendency. The COD removal cost for UASB is
greater than that for ASP when the price of land exceeds
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460 457

Table 6
Intersection of land price for total annual cost shown in Fig. 7 and COD removal cost shown in Fig. 8

Treatment volume (m3/d) Process Annual interest rate (%) Land price, US$/m2a

Against total annual cost Against COD removal cost

6000–25,000 UASB, WSP 5 11.92 7.71

6000–25,000 WSP, BAF 5 40.65 39.51
6000–25,000 UASB, WSP 10 9.07 5.55
6000–25,000 WSP, BAF 10 27.30 26.14
6000–25,000 UASB, WSP 15 7.78 4.57
6000–25,000 UASB, BAF 15 59.98 57.42
6000–25000 WSP, BAF 15 21.25 20.08
51,000–100,000 UASB, ASP 5 — 42.74
51,000–100,000 UASB, ASP 10 — 17.00
51,000–100,000 UASB, ASP 15 — 5.38
a
Intersection of land price.

Table 7
Intersection of annual interest rate for total annual cost shown in Fig. 7 and COD removal cost shown in Fig. 8

Treatment volume (m3/d) Process Land price (US$/m2) Annual interest rate (%)a

Against total annual cost Against COD removal cost

6000–25,000 UASB, BAF 60 15.0 14.0

51,000–100,000 UASB, ASP 20 — 9.1
51,000–100,000 UASB, ASP 60 — 3.1
a
Intersection of annual interest rate.

42.74, 17.00, and 5.38 US$/m2 at an annual interest rate of
5%, 10%, and 15%, respectively. Likewise, the COD
removal cost for UASB becomes greater than that for ASP
when the annual interest rate exceeds 9.1% and 3.1% for a
land price of 20 and 60 US$/m2, respectively. Therefore,
the UASB and ASP systems should be selected with careful
consideration given to effluent standards, the surrounding
environment, future urban planning, and other factors.
3.2.5. Environmental considerations
Further analysis was conducted in consideration of the
Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol agreed upon on 16
February 2005, required developed countries to reduce
designated amounts of such greenhouse gases as carbon
dioxide and methane. The clean development mechanism
(CDM) is one of the mechanisms employed to reduce
greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore,
when developed countries implement projects certified for
CDM, they can obtain so-called carbon credit from
reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by said
projects. Should the methane from UASB be credited
through CDM certification, the UASB system may offer a
great advantage. The advantage is quantified by trial
calculation using the following estimated values:
 methane production per COD removal: 0.2 m3/kg COD
(Haskoning Consulting Engineers, Architects and Wa-
geningen Agricultural University, 1994),
 sewage temperature: 25 1C (0.6544 kg CH4/m3–CH4),
 COD removal by UASB reactor: 320 mg/L (from this
study).
Based on the values above, the methane production per
unit treatment volume is estimated as 0.0419 kg CH4/m3.
Depending on utilization, the contribution to global
warming will vary. This paper assumes simple incineration
as the means of utilization. As a result of incineration, the
carbon dioxide emitted per unit treatment volume is
estimated at 0.115 kg CO2/m3. Next, this amount is
compared to that of ASP. Electrical power consumption
by ASP (at 72,000 m3/d) was found to be 15,200 kWh/d
(JICA, 2005). Energy consumed in India is largely
dependent on coal-fired thermal power generation, ac-
counting for 73% in 1998 (OECD/IAE, 2002). This type of
power generation plant emits carbon dioxide at a rate of
1.04 kg CO2/kWh (OSC, 2005). Assuming the consumption
of power from such plants, carbon dioxide is estimated to
be emitted at a rate of 0.22 kg CO2/m3 for the unit volume
treated by ASP. This means that UASB can reduce carbon
dioxide emissions to a rate of 0.1 kg CO2/m3 compared to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
458 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460
Fig. 8. Total annual cost (TAC) and COD removal cost for UASB and ASP at a treatment volume of 51,000–100,000 m3/d.
ASP (but may require further consideration regarding the
estimated amount of CO2). In developing countries, official
development assistance (ODA) projects are essential for
constructing sewage treatment plants. However, ODA
projects cannot be certified for CDM at this time.
Moreover, the procedure to obtain carbon credit is not
easy. By addressing these issues, treatment processes may
be selected in consideration of Kyoto Protocol criteria in
addition to costs.
3.2.6. Future issue—consideration for sewage charge
According to the Urban Development Department
(2003), a sewage fee is charged to residents based on the
number of facilities such as toilets and kitchens possessed.
Specifically, inhabitants pay 0.17 US$/month per flush
toilet, 0.06 US$/month per urinal, and 0.10 US$/month
per kitchen. In India, sewage production per capita is
estimated to be 0.16 m3/d (70.04) (Sato et al., 2006). Then,
for an estimated average of five members per household,
the annual sewage charge will be equivalent to 4.97 US$/
m3/d. This sewage charge only covers the WSP system of
6000–50,000 m3/d capacity, at an annual interest rate of
5% and land price of 2 US$/m2 (see Fig. 5). As a result, the
state government covers any shortfall in cost for sewerage
works from its general accounts. Considering the sustain-
ability of operation, the beneficiaries should ideally cover
all necessary costs. However, it is not easy to expect that
inhabitants would accept a higher sewage fee (PHED,
2004). The amount of the sewage fee is one of the future
issues for sewage development in India.
4. Summary and conclusions
This paper evaluates the low-cost treatment processes
UASB and WSP in terms of capital and annual O&M
costs, and land requirements. In addition, these processes
are compared to the mechanical aerated processes ASP and
BAF in terms of costs including total annual cost and COD
removal cost with various annual interest rates and land
prices.
It has been found that UASB requires more capital and
O&M costs than WSP. The capital and O&M costs for
UASB and WSP systems were expressed by a first-order
equation, which has also been utilized by other researchers.
The capital cost for the investigated WSP may be
considered typical in India since it is similar to the other
reports in India (Arceivala, 1998). On the other hand, the
O&M cost for the investigated UASB can also be applied
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460
to other countries after conversion of the expenses using
certain factors. In addition, treatment systems were also
ranked in terms of the total annual cost (e.g., capital,
manpower, chemical, repair, electricity, land). It showed
that the UASB system is economically a better choice than
WSP when the land cost is high.
However, among the compared systems, WSP tends to
be more applicable to limited rural areas in India. Systems
like ASP did not show much benefit in terms of COD
removal cost. Finally, it was found that UASB could be
economically the best option for India when considering all
factors, including expenses and treatment efficiency.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express special thanks to the
National River Conservation Directorate (under India’s
Ministry of Environment and Forests), the Public Health
Engineering Department (under the Haryana local govern-
ment), and Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (under the Uttar
Pradesh local government) for extending various forms of
assistance during the field survey work.
References
Arceivala, S.J., 1998. Wastewater Treatment for Pollution Control, second
ed. Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi, India.
Arthur, J.P., 1983. Notes on the design and operation of wastewater
stabilization ponds in warm climates of developing countries. World
Bank Technical Paper No. 7, Washington, DC, USA.
Balmer, P., Mattsson, B., 1994. Wastewater treatment plant operation
cost. Water Science and Technology 30 (4), 7–15.
Binnie Thames Water, 1996. Urban Environmental Services Master Plan
for Lucknow, India (1996–2021). Assisted by Department for
International Development, Government of UK.
Canler, J.P., Perret, M., 1994. Biological aerated filters: assessment of the
process based on 12 sewage treatment plants. Water Science and
Technology 29 (10–11), 13–22.
Central Statistical Organisation, 1999. Statistical Abstract India 1998.
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi,
India.
Central Statistical Organisation, 2004. Statistical Abstract India 2003.
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi,
India.
Haskoning Consulting Engineers, Architects and Wageningen Agricultur-
al University, 1994. Design, Construction, Operation, and Main-
tenance of UASB-reactors for Domestic Wastewater. Nijmegen,
Netherlands.
Japan India Business Club, 2005. /http://www8.ocn.ne.jp/risk21/
japanindia.htmlS.
JICA, 2005. The Study on Water Quality Management Plan for Ganga
River in the Republic of India, Final Report.
JSWA, 1999. Manual for Integrated Sewage Development in River Basin.
Japan Sewage Works Association, Tokyo, Japan.
JSWA, 2001. Manual for Master Plan of Effective Sewerage Facility
Development (Draft). Japan Sewage Works Association, Tokyo,
Japan.
Li, X.W., 1987. Study of the strategy of municipal sewage treatment
techniques. Report of Special Research from the Construction
Ministry of China.
Li, X.W., Qian, Y., Nie, M.S., 1990. Handbook of Municipal Wastewater
Stabilization Pond Design.
459
Madras Consultancy Group, Chennai, 2004. /http://www.indianindus-
tryprofiles.com/newindiainvesment.pptS.
Mara, D., 1997. Design Manual for Waste Stabilization Ponds in India.
Leeds, England.
OECD/IAE, 2002. Electricity in India, Providing Power for the Millions.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Interna-
tional Energy Agency, Paris, France.
OSC, 2005. Anthropogenic Emissions from Energy Activities in India:
Generation and Source Characterization. Ohio Supercomputer Center,
Columbus, OH http://www.osc.edu/research/pcrm/emissions/therma-
lemissions.shtml.
PHED, 1995a. Detailed Project Report, 10 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Yamunanagar (City Centre). Public Health En-
gineering Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995b. Detailed Project Report, 25 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Yamunanagar (Camp Area). Public Health En-
gineering Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995c. Detailed Project Report, 40 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Karnal. Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995d. Detailed Project Report, 10 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Panipat Zone-I. Public Health Engineering Depart-
ment, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995e. Detailed Project Report, 35 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Panipat Zone-II. Public Health Engineering Depart-
ment, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995f. Detailed Project Report, 30 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Sonepat. Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995g. Detailed Project Report, 45 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Faridabad Zone-II. Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995h. Detailed Project Report, 50 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Faridabad Zone-III. Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1995i. Detailed Project Report, 30 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant, Gurgaon. Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1998. Detailed Project Report for STP Zone-II 8 MLD Oxidation
Pond Under Yamuna Action Plan Project, Karnal. Haryana PWD
Public Health Department, Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1999a. Detailed Project Report for Sewage Treatment Plant Based
on Oxidation Ponds and Pumping Stations in Chhachhrauli Town
(Dist. Yamunanagar). Haryana PWD Public Health Department,
Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 1999b. Detailed Project Report for Sewage Treatment Plant Based
on Oxidation Ponds and Pumping Stations in Radaur Town (Dist.
Yamunanagar). Haryana PWD Public Health Department, Chandi-
garh, India.
PHED, 2000a. Detailed Project Report for Sewage Treatment Plant Based
on Waste Water Stabilization Pond and Pumping Station in
Gharaunda Town (Dist. Karnal). Haryana PWD Public Health
Department Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 2000b. Detailed Project Report of Sewage Treatment Plant for
Palwal, Dist. Faridabad. Haryana PWD Public Health Department,
Chandigarh, India.
PHED, 2004. Personal Interview. Public Health Engineering Department,
Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.
Pujol, R., Canler, J.P., Iwema, A., 1992. Biological aerated filters: an
attractive and alternative biological process. Water Science and
Technology 26 (3–4), 693–702.
Rogalla, F., Payraudeau, M., Bacquet, G., Bourbigot, M., Sibony, J.,
Gilles, P., 1990. Nitrification and phosphorus precipitation with
biological aerated filters. Research Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation 62 (2), 169–176.
Sato, N., Okubo, T., Onodera, T., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2006.
Prospects for a self-sustainable sewage treatment system—a case study
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
460 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 84 (2007) 447–460
on full-scale UASB system in India’s Yamuna river basin. Journal of
Environmental Management, in press.
Schellinkhout, A., 1993. UASB technology for sewage treatment:
experience with a full scale plant and its applicability in Egypt. Water
Science and Technology 27 (9), 173–180.
Tare, V., Gupta, S., Bose, P., 2003. Case studies on biological treatment of
tannery effluent in India. Journal of Air and Waste Management
Association 53, 976–982.
Tsagarakis, K.P., Mara, D.D., Angelakis, A.N., 2003. Application of cost
criteria for selection of municipal wastewater treatment systems.
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 142, 187–210.
UNDP, 2005. Human Development Report 2005, International Coopera-
tion at a Crossroads. United Nations Development Programme, New
York, USA.
UPJN, 1997a. Detailed Project Report of Sewage Treatment Plant—Tha
Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Ghaziabad, India.
UPJN, 1997b. Detailed Project Report for Prevention of Pollution of
River Yamuna at Mathura. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Mathura, India.
UPJN, 1998. Detailed Project Report for Prevention of Pollution of River
Yamuna at Agra, 2.25 MLD Oxidation Pond at Bhuri Nagla—Agra.
Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Agra, India.
View publication stats
UPJN, 1999. Revised Detailed Project Report for S.T.P. and Effluent
Channel at Town Under Yamuna Action Plan. Uttar Pradesh Jal
Nigam, Etawah, India.
UPJN, 2000a. Revised Project Report of 34 MLD UASB Sewage
Treatment Plant at Sector-50 Noida. Part-I. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam,
Noida, India.
UPJN, 2000b. Revised Detailed Project Report of Sewage Treatment
Plant—Cha Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Ghaziabad, India.
UPJN, 2000c. Revised D.P.R. of 78 MLD UASB Sewage Treatment Plant
At CIS Yamuna Area Agra. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Agra, India.
UPJN, 2000d. Revised Detailed Project for Prevention of Pollution of
River Yamuna at Vrindavan. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Mathura,
India.
UPJN, 2000e. Revised Detailed Project Report 38 MLD UASB Type STP
at Saharanpur. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Saharanpur, India.
UPJN, 2000f. Revised Detailed Project Report of Facultative Type
Stabilization Ponds at Muzaffarnagar. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam,
Muzaffarnagar, India.
UPJN, 2001. Revised Detailed Project Sewage Treatment Plant of Masani
Nala, Mathura. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Mathura, India.
Urban Development Department, 2003. Internal Document. Government
of Haryana, Chandigarh, India.