International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163

Issue 7, Volume 2 (July 2015)

www.ijirae.com

A Life Cycle Cost Approach for Evaluation of Sewage

Treatment Plants
Abhishek Koul
PG Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engg.
PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh

Siby John
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engg.
PEC University of Technology, Chandigarh

Abstract Sewage treatment plants based on different technologies are in practice. Varied claims are being made on
their performance efficiency as suitability. In most of the situations, these claims are made on the basis of evaluation
of different plants in isolation. A uniform or rational basis for comparison of these plants is yet to evolve. In this study
an attempt was made to evaluate the performance of the treatment plants based on UASBR, SBR and MBBR,
operating under similar conditions. It was also aimed to apply the Life Cycle Cost analysis technique in making a
comparative evaluation of the treatment plants. LCC analysis could be used as a potential tool for comparative
evaluation of sewage treatment plants. LCC supports UASBR as the most suitable technology for sewage treatment
followed by MBBR and SBR.
Keywords Life Cycle Cost; Sewage Treatment; Efficiency; SBR; UASBR; MBBR
I. INTRODUCTION
Sewage Treatment planning is not always an easy task to accomplish. In the developing nations where ecological issues
couldn't be given due importance because of budgetary imperatives, open bodies need to reconsider before making
significant speculations for the same. Over the course of the years, treatment related issues are additionally getting to be
lavish in light of the fact that accentuation is being given to regard wastewater as well as its reuse and reuse is likewise
turning into a vital angle. Residues and by-products resulting from the treatment process are additionally being
incorporated in the general wastewater administration framework. On the other hand, emphasis is also being given to
clean technologies to minimize waste production [1].
A standout amongst the most essential and challenging aspects of a sustainable sewage treatment design is the
examination and determination of the treatment procedures and technologies equipped for meeting the prerequisites. The
procedure is to be chosen in view of obliged nature of treated water. While treatment expenses are critical, different
components ought to additionally be given due thought. For instance, effluent quality, process unpredictability, process
dependability, environmental issues and area necessities ought to be assessed and weighted against expense
contemplations [2].
Different technologies for sewage treatment are in practice and varying claims on comparison of performance have been
reported. Various studies have been carried out for comparison of different sewage treatment technologies. Singh and
John had carried out comparison of UASBR and SBR technologies for sewage treatment by studying different
parameters which included BOD, COD, TSS, pH and temperature. SBR showed better results than UASBR as per the
treatment performance. But consideration of other factors such as power consumption and land requirement led authors
to conclude that any of the two technologies can be used as per requirements and resource availability [3]. CPCB
published a report with comparison of different technologies. ASP, MBBR, UASBR, SBR and WSP based STPs. SBR
had shown slightly better performance, followed by MBBR and UASBR [4]. Khalil et al. had made comparison of
various STPs based on technologies which included ASP, TF, WSP, UASBR, MBBR, SBR and MBR. BOD, COD, TSS
and FC were parameters considered for performance evaluation. It was observed that removal of different parameters was
almost comparable and was not significantly varying [1]. Tripathi and Singhal analyzed performance of two STPs based
on UASBR and FAB technologies. BOD, COD and TSS were parameters considered for carrying out performance
evaluation. FAB showed high TSS and BOD removal that UASBR, while higher COD removal was observed for
UASBR [5].
Life Cycle Cost analysis has evolved as one of the measures for determining the suitability for use of a particular type of
wastewater treatment technology. Different treatment processes can be used for any particular type of wastewater
generated from any source. Most of the times the efficiency or the degree of treatment for a treatment technology may be
almost similar to other technology or the difference may not be much significant. In such cases, Cost analysis may come
of use as to determine which treatment process can be preferred over other. Life Cycle Cost analysis helps to evaluate the
cost of a treatment technology over its design period to help determine the most suitable one. This is particularly helpful
in areas where selection of wastewater treatment technology may be restricted due to financial constraints.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014-15, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved
Page -15

International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163

Issue 7, Volume 2 (July 2015)
www.ijirae.com
Among the different new wastewater treatment technologies presently in use, UASBR has risen as most practical. In
numerous nations, UASBR has been used for treatment of high quality wastewater, yet in India, it has been utilized for
the treatment of residential wastewater. India is one of the main nations as far as the measure of sewage volume treated
by the UASBR process. It has been perceived as a standout amongst the most financially savvy and suitable sewage
treatment procedure considering the natural necessities in India. At present about 37 number of sewage treatment plants
based on the UASBR [4] are in operation in India.
The present study was carried out with a view to propose a rational basis for comparative evaluation of different
sewage treatment processes based on different technologies. It was achieved by monitoring and comparing the
performance of the STPs, evaluating and comparing the total cost involved in each of the treatment process and applying
LCC analysis technique to rationalize the comparative evaluation of STPs.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Chandigarh has a well planned underground network of pipes for the disposal of sewage generated in the city. As the city
has same social base, quality of sewage generated is almost similar. Three sewage treatment plants based on Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASBR), Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
technologies were selected for the study. The treatment plants based on UASBR and SBR are located at 3BRD, while as
MBBR based plant is located at Diggian, Mohali. The details of the treatment plants are specified in Table I.
Wastewater samples were collected from three treatment plants on a weekly basis during the period of study. Samples
were collected in plastic bottles, preserved and taken to the laboratory as per procedures described in Standard Methods
[6].
Physical and Chemical analysis of both treated and untreated wastewater was performed in accordance with procedures
detailed in Standard Methods [6].
Table I
Wastewater Treatment Technologies under consideration

S.No

Location of STP

Sewage Treatment Plant, 3 BRD

Sewage Treatment Plant, Diggian, Mohali

Capacity

Technology

22.7 MLD

UASBR Based Technology

45.4 MLD

SBR Based Technology

136 MLD

MBBR Based Technology

Life Cycle Cost

For Life Cycle Cost analysis, the cost data for different technologies was collected from the respective treatment plants.
This included initial cost comprising of construction cost and equipment setup, land required and its cost, net operation
and maintenance cost including electricity charges, replacement works, manpower involved, maintenance works, etc.
The total annual cost is calculated by using the following equation [1],
TAC = (CRF IC) + OMC

(1)

Where,
TAC = Total Annual Cost, CRF = Capital Recovery Factor, IC = Initial Cost (e.g., for Capital, Land), OMC = Operation
and Maintenance Cost
The economic life of STP and annual rate of interest have been considered as 30 years and 12 % respectively
Life Cycle Cost for n years can be calculated by using following equation
F=A

(2)

Where,
F = total cost at end of n years, A = Uniform Annual Cost, n = design period in years, i = annual rate of interest
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The performance of the Sewage Treatment Plants was evaluated over a period of 4 months. The various parameters
which were monitored included BOD, COD, Total Suspended Solids, Nitrates and Coliform Reduction. The removal
efficiencies in respect of the mentioned parameters for each of the treatment plant were calculated and analyzed on a
weekly basis.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014-15, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved
Page -16

International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163

Issue 7, Volume 2 (July 2015)
www.ijirae.com
A. Characteristics of Influent
The variation in the characteristics of influent with respect to BOD, COD and Total Suspended Solids for the three
STPs is depicted in table II. It was observed that the influent for all the three plants had almost similar characteristics.
The variation in BOD ranged from a maximum of 310 mg/L to a minimum of 210 mg/L and the COD varied from 950
mg/L to 420 mg/L. The pH varied from 6 to 8, while suspended solids varied from 400 mg/L to 150 mg/L.
Table II
Variation of BOD, COD and TSS in influent

Influent BOD (mg/L)

Influent COD (mg/L)

Influent TSS (mg/L)

Weeks

SBR

UASBR

MBBR

SBR

UASBR

MBBR

SBR

UASBR

MBBR

259.3

241.26

211.14

640

720

500

310

320

260

280.4

240.4

255.4

800

720

592

220

250

270

283.23

285.1

275.1

576

680

512

200

280

320

248.92

301.2

301.2

816

740

740

220

310

280

270

265

275

704

640

500

210

290

290

285

253.01

307.22

760

800

580

240

260

260

295

280.2

270.2

730

780

640

400

375

265

303.25

283.13

240.96

720

660

540

240

290

200

289.45

270.3

211.14

800

608

416

210

330

150

10

259.03

283.13

210.84

592

840

420

210

220

246

11

289.15

240.96

246.98

870

900

800

270

170

140

12

278

260

260

940

950

940

260

160

220

13

284.15

310

303.35

752

940

890

240

120

260

B. Process Efficiency
The process efficiency of the entire system was evaluated by comparing the characteristics of the influent and effluent
from the plant. The process efficiency was evaluated based on the following monitoring parameters:
1) Biochemical Oxygen Demand: BOD percentage removal was calculated for the three STPs during the period of
study. Table III shows the percentage removal of BOD for all STPs. The average removal percentages were 88.58%,
81.58% and 79.32% for SBR, UASBR and MBBR respectively.
2) Chemical Oxygen Demand: Table III shows the variation of percentage removal for COD in three treatment plants
during the course of study. The average removal percentages were 71.75%, 69.2% and 74.36% for SBR, UASBR and
MBBR respectively.
3) Total Suspended Solids: Table III shows the percentage removal for TSS in three treatment plants during the study
period. The average percentage removal was 88.74%, 91% and 90% for SBR, UASBR and MBBR respectively.
Table III
Percentage removal of BOD, COD and TSS for three STPs.

BOD Removal

COD Removal

Weeks

SBR

UASBR

MBBR

SBR

UASBR

85.223

88.57

74.28

57.5

77.77

89.048

83.44

80.26

60.5

64.44

88.075

89.59

80.13

77.773

77.05

87.068

86.42

81.38

81.125

88.858

87.76

79.48

89.18

84.19

89.73

8
9

TSS Removal
MBBR

SBR

UASBR

MBBR

77.6

89.09

94.37

92.3

77.02

86.358

90

93.33

73.43

88

92.5

93.43

71.35

76.75

89.428

92.9

93.92

75.28

75

79.2

86.783

91.37

91.03

82.09

77.1

71.5

83.44

87.915

91.92

88.46

82.79

81.42

75.89

79.23

80

90.63

94.93

86.41

90.875

77.1

73.09

69.69

76.96

77.77

88.328

93.44

91

89.89

68.5

64.69

64.33

51.31

61.5

86.66

95.75

92

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014-15, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved
Page -17

International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163

Issue 7, Volume 2 (July 2015)
www.ijirae.com
10

84.84

75.98

70.59

65.198

61.9

58.09

88.45

93.18

87.02

11

86.97

78.41

75.7

69.513

57.55

73.33

92.67

93.52

90.71

12

86.155

78.84

73.68

77.015

66.31

74.46

91.05

87.5

86.36

13

95.635

79.03

75.45

81.9

69.23

74.19

88.32

84.16

84.61

4) Total Coliform: Coliform reduction efficiency of the sewage treatment plants was determined by calculating log
reduction by comparing coliforms present in influent and effluent. Table IV shows the log reduction of Total Coliforms
in different sewage treatment technologies.
Table IV
Performance of Sewage Treatment Plants- Coliform Reduction

Inlet

SBR
3 10

UASBR
2 10

MBBR
3 10

Outlet

9 10

3 10

2 10

Log Reduction

5) Nitrates: Table V shows the influent concentration of nitrates and removal efficiency for STPs. For SBR, average
percentage removal of nitrates is 46.56%, while as for UASBR and MBBR it is 39% and 61.77% respectively.
Table V
Nitrate removal for all STPs

Influent Nitrate (mg/L)

Nitrate Removal (%)

Weeks

SBR

UASBR

MBBR

SBR

UASBR

MBBR

4.8

6.2

6.9

43.75

38.7

66.66

4.9

5.9

6.2

51

38.98

58.06

5.4

6.3

44.44

35

58.73

5.1

6.1

6.6

47.05

40.9

63.63

In the present study, the BOD removal efficiency varied in the order SBR > UASBR > MBBR. The COD removal was
in the order MBBR > SBR > UASBR. The TSS removal efficiency followed the order UASBR > MBBR > SBR. The
nitrates removal efficiency was in the order MBBR > SBR > UASBR. Therefore, it is implied that comparison of
removal efficiencies of the individual parameters in these reactors may not yield reliable information for decision making.
As such, choice of the suitability of these reactors cannot be made solely on the basis removal efficiencies in respect of
individual parameters.
C. Life Cycle Cost Analysis
As mentioned, the performance evaluation is not alone sufficient for the comparison of different sewage treatment
technologies. Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis has been largely applied as a tool to evaluate the best cost effective
alternative among various alternatives to achieve the lowest long term cost of ownership. The net worth investment cost
analysis was done on actual existing plants based on the available information. This analysis was followed by LCC
analysis to determine life cycle cost for each of the STP on the basis of standard requirements of each technology.
Table VI presents the net worth investment cost for three technologies per MLD basis for business as usual conditions of
the STPs.
Table VI
Net worth Investment per MLD of the STPs

S No

Parameter

Unit

SBR

UASB

MBBR

Land Area used

acres/MLD

0.12

0.48

0.09

Capital Cost

crores/MLD

0.7

0.26

0.21

Biogas Generation

m /d

312

Annual Power Cost

crores/MLD

0.0312

0.0052

0.019

Annual O&M cost (including recurring,

chemical, manpower costs, etc.)

crores/MLD

0.6

0.203

0.6

Total Annual O&M cost

crores/MLD

0.63

0.208

0.6

Average Land cost (per acre)

Crores

11

11

11

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014-15, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved
Page -18

International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163

Issue 7, Volume 2 (July 2015)
www.ijirae.com
8

Cost of Land

crores/MLD

1.32

5.28

0.99

Unit Capital cost including land

crores/MLD

2.02

5.54

1.2

10

Annual Interest

Percent

12

12

12

11

Economic Life

Years

30

30

30

12

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)

0.124

0.124

0.124

13

Total Annual cost

0.88

0.894

0.74

14

Present Discount Factor

8.06

8.06

8.06

15

Net Present Worth of Investment Cost

7.09

7.2

5.96

crores/MLD

crores/MLD

It is observed that the present net worth investment cost of UASBR is the highest among all the reactors, which is in
contradiction to previous studies ([1],[2],[4],[7]). The highest cost of UASB can be attributed to the fact that per MLD
land provided in the present case was very high as compared to standard requirement as prescribed by CPCB [4] The
LCC analysis for the three technologies per MLD basis is done as per standard area requirements as proposed by the
CPCB [4] using the formula explained in (1) above. Table VII presents the LCC analysis.
Table VII
LCC per MLD basis as per standard area requirements

S No

Parameter

Unit

SBR

UASB

MBBR

Average Area Required

acres/MLD

0.13

0.26

0.13

Capital Cost

crores/MLD

0.7

0.26

0.21

Biogas Generation

312

Bio energy Generation*

kWh

187

Annual Power Cost

crores/MLD

0.0312

0.0052

0.019

Annual O&M cost (including recurring,

chemical, manpower costs, etc.)

crores/MLD

0.6

0.203

0.6

Total Annual O&M cost

crores/MLD

0.63

0.208

0.6

Average Land cost (per acre)

crores

11

11

11

Cost of Land

crores/MLD

1.43

2.86

1.43

10

Unit Capital cost including land

crores/MLD

2.13

3.12

1.64

11

Annual Interest

percent

12

12

12

12

Economic Life

years

30

30

30

13

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)

0.124

0.124

0.124

14

Total Annual cost

0.89

0.59

0.8

15

Present Discount Factor

8.06

8.06

8.06

16

Net Present Worth

crores/MLD

7.17

4.75

6.44

17

Life Cycle Cost for 30 years

crores/MLD

214

142

193

m /d

crores/MLD

*1m CH4 can generate about 0.6 kWh of electricity [1]

D. Discussion
It is observed that on the basis of prevalent conditions and actual area provided, the UASB based treatment plant shows
highest cost requirement per MLD as compared to SBR and MBBR based plants. However, it is in contradiction to
previous studies which have shown UASB as more cost effective than the other two technologies. Khalil et al. had
compared different sewage treatments plants based on ASP, WSP, UASB, MBBR, SBR and MBR on the basis of LCC.
It was observed that among UASB, SBR and MBBR, lowest cost requirement was shown by UASB, followed by MBBR
and SBR [1]. NGRBA prepared a report comparing treatment costs of various treatment plants including UASB, MBBR
and SBR. The results showed that UASB based STP had least cost requirements, followed by SBR and MBBR [2].
CPCB indicated the following order in case of life cycle cost for STPs: UASB < SBR < MBBR [4].
In the present study also, when the standard conditions, especially the land area required for each of the process, were
used in the calculation, it was found that the UASB based plant showed least cost required per MLD, which is in
accordance with the prevalent studies.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014-15, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved
Page -19

International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering (IJIRAE) ISSN: 2349-2163

Issue 7, Volume 2 (July 2015)
www.ijirae.com
The land area in use for SBR and MBBR based treatment plants is almost equal to that prescribed as standard
requirements. It is also observed that a certain portion of energy requirements is fulfilled in case of UASB process due to
bio gas generation. This is another factor contributing to lower the operation costs for UASB process.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, attempt was made to generate a rational basis for comparison of STPs based on SBR, UASBR and MBBR.
The performance of all the STPs in respect of removal of different monitoring parameters such as BOD, COD and TSS
was almost comparable and were not significantly varying. As such, comparison of the treatment efficiencies in respect
of the removal efficiencies of routine monitoring parameters may not provide sufficient information which will facilitate
their selection or choice.
LCC could be considered as a potential tool for the comparison of the STPs under similar working conditions. In the
study area, due to larger land area provided to the UASB reactor, it was found to be having the highest net worth
investment cost. Life Cycle Cost analysis based on the standard land area requirement for all the technologies indicated
the cost comparison as UASB < MBBR < SBR.
On basis of the results of the study, it can be concluded that UASB is the most suitable technology for sewage treatment
for given conditions, followed by MBBR and SBR.

[1]

[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]

REFERENCES
Khalil, N., Sinha, R., Raghav, A.K. and Mittal, A.K., 2008. UASB Technology for Sewage Treatment in India:
Experience, Economic Evaluation and its Potential in other developing Countries, Twelfth International Water
Technology Conference, Alexandria, Egypt.
NGRBA 2010. Sewage Treatment in Class I towns: Recommendations and Guidelines. National Ganga River Basin
Authority, New Delhi.
Singh, D.D. and John, S., 2013. Study the different parameters of sewage treatment with UASB and SBR
technologies. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 6(1).
CPCB, 2013. Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants under NRCD, Central Pollution Control Board,
New Delhi.
Tripathi, M. and Singhal, S.K., 2013. Performance Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Plants In Lucknow City, Hydro
Nepal, 12(1).
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 1998. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Dhupkar V., 2014. Optimization of Design and Technology for Sewage Treatment, National Conference on Energy
and Environment, University of Pune, Pune.
CPCB, 1998. Status of Sewage Treatment in India, Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi.
ITRC, 2006. Life Cycle Cost Analysis, The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council - Remediation Process
Optimization Team, Washington, DC.
Metcalf and Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering-Treatment and Reuse, McGraw Hill Education, Fourth Edition.
Patil, I.P., Wagh, H.D. and Dwivedi, A.K., 2013. Water Recycle and Reuse A Case Study of NMIMS University
Campus, IJESI, 2(9).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
2014-15, IJIRAE- All Rights Reserved
Page -20