ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN DRAINS

In Compliance to Direction of Hon’ble NGT in the Matter of OA No. 06/2012
Titled Manoj Mishra Vs Union of India & ORS

February, 2020

CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DELHI

 CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
1. BACKGROUND 4
2. ADVANTAGES AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OF ALTERNATIVE BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 4
3. WATERSHED PATTERN – STREAM ORDER 5
4. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 7
4.1 IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION TECHNIQUES 7
4.1.1 Phytoremediation 7
4.1.2 Constructed Wetlands (CWs) 7
4.1.3 Microbial Bioremediation 9
4.2 Ex-Situ Remediation Techniques 10
4.2.1 Waste stabilization pond 10
4.2.2 Mechanically Aerated Lagoon 11
5. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
FOR REJUVENATION OF DRAINS 13
6. SCHEMES/MODELS FOR DIFFERENT ORDERS OF DRAIN 14
6.1 Model 1: Minor sewage drain with moderate pollution load & broader channel 14
6.2 Model 2: Minor sewage drain with moderate pollution load & wide channel 15
6.3 Model 3: Minor sewage drain with moderate pollution load & narrow channel 16
6.4 Model 4: Minor sewage drain with high pollution load &broader channel 17
6.5 Model 5: Minor sewage drain with high pollution load & wide channel 18
6.6 Model 6: Minor sewage drain with high pollution load& narrow channel 19
6.7 Model 7: Medium sewage drain with low pollution load & broader channel 20
6.8 Model 8: Medium sewage drain with low pollution load & wide channel 21
6.9 Model 9: Medium sewage drain with moderate pollution load & broader channel 22
6.10 Model 10: Medium sewage drain with moderate pollution load & wide channel 23
6.11 Model 11: Medium sewage drain with high pollution load & broader channel 24
6.12 Model 12: Medium sewage drain with very high pollution load & broader channel 25
6.13 Model 13: Major sewage drain with low high pollution load & broader channel 26
6.14 Model 14: Major sewage drain with moderate pollution load & broader channel 27
6.15 Model 15: Major sewage drain with low pollution load & broader channel 28
7. CHALLENGES WITH APPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 33

1|Page
8. CASE STUDIES ON DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 33
9.0 AN EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED TREATMENT SCHEME 35
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 37
ANNEXURE-I 38

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BOD- Biological oxygen demand

COD – Chemical oxygen Demand
CPCB – Central Pollution Control Board
CW- Constructed wetland
DO – Dissolved oxygen
EL – Elevation
EM – Electromagnetic
ICT- Institute of Chemical Technology
IIT- Indian Institute of Technology
MLD- Million liter per day
MSL- Mean sea level
N – Nitrogen
NEERI- National Environmental Engineering Research Institute
NGT – National Green Tribunal
NH3-N – Ammonical Nitrogen
NO3-N – Nitrate Nitrogen
O&M - Operation & Maintenance
OL- Organic load
OLR – Organic loading rate
P- Phosphorus
PO4-P – Phosphate
STP – Sewage Treatment plants
TERI- The Energy and Resources Institute
TSS – Total dissolved solids
V – Volume
WSP- Waste stabilization pond

3|Page
 REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT OF DRAINS IN COMPLIANCE TO DIRECTION OF
HON’BLE NGT IN THE MATTER OF OA NO. 06/2012 TITLED MANOJ MISHRA VS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1. BACKGROUND
The verbatim of Hon’ble National Green Tribunal in the matter of OA No. 06 of 2012 titled;
Manoj Mishra Vs Union of India & Ors. vide order dated 22.01.2020 at para 25 is as follows:
“Since the above report does not mention the generic and representative models
which could be customised, adapted and adopted to the natural scenario including
the drains in question, let CPCB furnish such a report containing at least ten
generic and representative models which are techno-economically feasible and can
be implemented after customization to the YMC by 07.02.2020 and the YMC may
include the report with its comments in its report to be submitted to this Tribunal
before the next date by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in.
CPCB furnish a report in terms of Para 25 above to the YMC by 07.02.2020 and
the YMC may include the report with its comments in its report to be submitted to
this Tribunal before the next date by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in.”
A meeting was convened on 27.01.2020 to consult experts including representatives from
NEERI, TERI, Delhi University and other stakeholders. During the meeting, apart from in-
situ remediation, low cost decentralised treatment systems (waste stabilization pond,
oxidation pond, anaerobic lagoon) were also discussed, which can be adopted as ex-situ
treatment. Another meeting was convened on 29.01.2020 wherein consultation was held
with experts from IIT-Roorkee, IIT-BHU and ICT - Mumbai.

2. ADVANTAGES AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES OF ALTERNATIVE

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
In situ treatment methods such as constructed wetland system, phytoremediation, Eco Bio
Block system, microbial bio remediation are most favorable methods for alternative
biological treatment technology of drains. Although above treatment systems are temporary
provision but it may be adopted for further polishing of STP effluent. Alternative biological
treatment technologies are not only useful in improving water quality of drains / rivers but
are also helpful in rejuvenation of the ecology of a river system. Benefits of alternative
biological treatment technologies are highlighted below:
 Alternative biological treatment technology methods such as phytoremediation or
wetland systems are efficient in terms of nutrient removal such as removal of
nitrogen and phosphorous.

4|Page
  All alternative biological treatment technologies are low in energy incentive and not
only reduces carbon footprint thereby minimizing climate change impact but also
contributes to carbon sequestration.

 Constructed Wetlands have highest microbial diversity that will biodegrade not only
organic but all emergent pollutants including odor producing substances & gases,
antibiotic, detergent, pharmaceutical products, etc.

 The technologies provide benefits like increase in the biodiversity and biomass
production apart from habitat conservation.

 Constructed Wetlands may attract migratory birds, as well as provide aesthetic and
recreational services to the public.

 Studies indicate that there is massive reduction in pathogenic microbes in alternative

biological treatment technology as compared to conventional treatment.

 In-situ remediation technique does not require much energy, its maintenance cost is
relatively low, it is easy to develop, operate and manage as compared to conventional
technology. Besides high reduction efficiency of BOD, different alternative
treatment technologies are efficient in increasing Dissolve Oxygen (DO) and
reducing Fecal Coliform (FC) e.g. Phytoremediation technique can reduce FC by
50% and increase DO from 0 to 5 mg/l; Oxidation Pond can reduce FC by more than
95% and increase DO from 0 to 5mg/l; similarly, lagoons are efficient in reduction
of FC by 50-70%.

 The cost of alternative biological treatment technology is extremely low.

 In-situ remediation is more efficient in restoring self-purification system of river and

also immobilization of heavy metals.

 Constructed wetlands contribute to groundwater recharge as well as results in

buffering of ambient temperature and odor.

3. WATERSHED PATTERN – STREAM ORDER

Based on the drainage pattern, all drains traverse towards recipient water body located
downstream of drains. Drains which directly discharge into recipient water bodies such as
rivers, rivulets, ponds, lakes etc. are called as first order drain. Drains which join into first
order drain are called as second order drains. Similarly, third and fourth order drains could
be defined. The first and second order drains which confluence directly with River system
are relatively larger with continuous flow.

5|Page
Generally, drain emerging from urban centers/ rural habitats are third or fourth order drains
which confluence into larger second or first order drains finally meeting into river/
pond/lakes.
Third and fourth order drains are rather narrow, very shallow, located at higher gradient,
usually shorter in length and often covered / or passed beneath roads. Similarly, due to
unplanned growth, untreated sewage/ industrial discharge into such drains, which ultimately
meets first and second order drain (Figure – 1).
This sort of order of drain is defined as classic stream order, also called Hack's stream
order. Drains usually carry wastewater from Urban/Rural centers called domestic sewage or
effluent from Industrial activities and surface runoff including agricultural runoff.
Therefore, drains could be broadly categorized as sewage drains carrying only sewage and
mixed drains carrying sewage and industrial effluent.

Figure 1 Drainage pattern of any city/town

Based on drain data available for River Ganga and its tributaries, categorization of drains
has been made considering their hydrological characteristics namely, flow, pollution load
and physical characteristics, which may influence selection of drain wastewater treatment
technology.
Flow – Based on flow drain can be classified as,

 <20MLD – Minor Drain

 20 – 50 MLD – Medium Drain
 >50 MLD – Major Drain
Pollution Load – Based on pollution load in terms of BOD concentration, drains can be
classified as,

6|Page
  <50 mg/l – Low Pollution Load
 50-100 mg/l – Modern Pollution Load
 >100 mg/l – High Pollution Load
Width – Based on channel width, drains can be classified as,
 <3m – Narrow Drain
 3 – 15m – Wide Drain
 >15m – Broad Drain
Drain could also be characterized based on the criteria such as drain traversing through hilly
terrain, rocky terrain, plain, marshy area and draining into different recipient water body like
river, lakes, pond and sea.

4. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

4.1 IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION TECHNIQUES
In-Situ bioremediation techniques involve treatment at the site using aquatic plants and/or
microbial remediation methods. In-Situ treatment systems can be commissioned in lower
time duration (few months only), is easy to operate, and requires less energy as compared to
conventional treatment technologies. In-situ treatment, depending on effluent characteristics,
site conditions, and type of treatment systems, may either provide desired quality of treated
effluent or act as supplementary to conventional treatment technologies. In any case,
wherever feasible, it can be used as an interim remedial measure and help in reducing
pollution load or polishing of treated effluent from Sewage Treatment Plants. The common
in-situ treatment systems are Microbial Bioremediation, Phytoremediation, Constructed
Wetland System and Root Zone Treatment. Adequate space and appropriate flow are general
requirements for adoption of these technologies. Details of above mentioned In-situ
bioremediation techniques indicating methodology, parameters for the feasibility
assessment, existing experiences, etc. are as follow:
4.1.1 Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is a bioremediation process that uses various types of plants to remove,
transfer, stabilize, and/or destroy contaminants in the soil and groundwater.
Phytoremediation involves the removal of organic compounds and nutrients from
wastewater through bio-sorption/uptake by pollution-tolerant aquatic plants (such as
algae, water hyacinth, duckweeds, etc.) growing in the wastewater. Quite often such
plants grow along the littoral zones on either side of the drain.
4.1.2 Constructed Wetlands (CWs)
CWS also uses principle of Phytoremediation techniques. It integrates microbial
bioremediation, phytoremediation and root-zone treatment in addition to providing the
benefits of oxidation pond and physical filters.

Constructed wetlands (CWs) are scientifically proven and widely adopted across the
world as alternative and complementary technology to conventional technologies for
sewage treatment. A well-designed constructed wetland system will work on the same
principle as that of STP but with greater microbial diversity associated with diverse plant

7|Page
 species that effectively biodegrade organics and other pollutants in sewage and without
energy.

A constructed wetland is highly versatile and can be designed for drains that have
different topography hydraulics and physical characteristics of the drain (width, length,
height). A constructed wetland system can be used as primary/ secondary/ tertiary
treatment and with continuous flow. Figure 2 depicts schematic flow diagram of a
Constructed Wetland System.

Figure 2 Schematic Diagram of Constructed Wetland Systems

A typical CW system should have the following components:
i. An aerobic oxidation pond with depth of water ranging from < 1m to 5m; water may
be retained for at least 8-10 hours and consequently there may be slight rise in the
water level (up to 30cm) from the normal water level in the drain.
(a) there may be a screen (iron mash having 4-10 mm aperture) before the oxidation
pond to remove solid waste and another screen (2-4 mm aperture) before water

8|Page
 enters into two physical filter tanks / chambers/ zones/ channels from oxidation
pond.
ii. Three physical filter tanks/ chambers/ channels/ zones are ideal for efficient
functioning; the physical filter chambers are separated by gabions of boulders of
different sizes and embedded in iron mesh.
(a) the first chamber/ channel/ zone is separated from the second chamber by a
gabion made of boulders of 2' within the chamber channel and there will be 3
ridges made of stones/ pebbles of 200 to 250 mm.
(b) The second chamber is separated from third chamber by a gabion made of
boulders of 1’ size with 3-4 ridges of pebbles of 180 mm.
(c) The third chamber is separated from the constructed wetland by gabion made of
boulders of 1’ size with 3 to 4 ridges of river bed pebbles of 150 -120 mm.
iii. Constructed wetland having 5-10 furrows of 1 to 4 m width separated by ridges of 1
m high, 0.5m wide and composed of river bed pebbles of 80-50 mm size.
iv. Cascade outlet is made of boulders, stones and pebbles with gentle slope from the
overflow of the constructed wetlands. Water coming out from the cascade can be
recycled /stored in stagnant water bodies / wetland or channelized into the
downstream of the drain or river.
Note:
i. The height of gabions should be 1.0 m 1.5 m high and usually above the water level
in the channels/ chambers/ ponds/ zones.
ii. The typical CW system outlined above is for in situ biological remediation where the
sides of the chambers/ ponds/ channels / zones are the embankments of the drains.
iii. For ex-situ biological remediation, the four sides of chambers/ponds/ tanks should be
made of stone meshed walls of 1.5 -2 m high and 0.5 m – 1 m wide and all the
components should be contiguous with gradient so that water flows on its own. If a
gradient does not exist, a gradient channel has to be constructed.

4.1.3 Microbial Bioremediation

Microbial bioremediation involves periodic or continuous dosing of special waste-
treating microbes, fungi and /or plants and their products (such as enzymes) in adequate
quantity to the wastewater mass. The effectiveness of bioremediation depends on both
the wastewater characteristics, the microorganisms and products that are used for dosing,
the dosing amount, frequency of dosing and the environmental conditions.
Microbial bioremediation could be intrinsic (within the drain using natural consortia of
microorganisms) or in vitro (using an engineered treatment system).
Microorganisms are used to treat mainly the organic matter; small quantity of inorganic
materials and metals are also consumed as nutrients. Direct use of enzymes is done in
biochemical treatment. It may be noted that aerobic microbes need less time, whereas
anaerobic microbes need more time to degrade the waste.
Flow and retention time: This type of bioremediation requires retention time of 20 -30
hours, therefore may be suitable for drains with low flow.

9|Page
 Output of the process could vary where flow rates are variable and high, which could
partly be due to rapid wash out of the material dosed from drains during high flow pulses.
Drains often need interventions to slow down the flow rates. Also, the process being
inherently slow will achieve good performance in larger span of time.
Domestic wastewater also gets mixed with the effluents from industries which invariably
carry inorganic pollutants thereby impacting the microbial load. While there have been
claims of successful treatment of municipal wastewater by bioremediation with various
microorganisms and inoculums, these claims require reverification for a sustained period.
The system requires a kind of bio-reactor to meet the retention time and as such it
requires a large area /stretch to provide the requisite retention time and the microbial
diversity is limited and is composed of consortia of known microbes. There is recurring
cost for maintaining microbial consortia as bio-media has to be added in running stream
at regular intervals.
Further, the successful use of this bioremediation technique for in-situ treatment of
wastewater-carrying drains, would necessitate periodic removal of bio-sludge generated
over time from the drains to avoid choking of the drains and/or addition of pollution
load on the receiving water body by transporting the sludge generated.
There is a requirement for well-defined specifications in case of this type of
bioremediation since the microbial composition and doses are usually trade secrets and
claims are unverifiable and comparable.
Current application of microbial bioremediation carried out by NMCG in 144 drains
depicts better results in drains having flow less than 10 MLD. Therefore, such
intervention can be applied in low hydraulic load and its expected outcome shall be
within 50 %.

4.2 Ex-Situ Remediation Techniques

Ex-situ remediation technique includes constructed wetland, waste stabilization pond,
aerated lagoon and oxidation pond. Design and performance details are attached as
Annexure-I. Details of ex-situ techniques are given below:
4.2.1 Waste stabilization pond
Waste or Wastewater Stabilization Ponds (WSPs) are large, man-made water bodies in
which Blackwater, greywater or faecal sludge are treated by natural occurring processes
and the influence of solar light, wind, microorganisms and algae. The ponds can be used
individually, or linked in a series for improved treatment. There are three types of ponds,
(1) anaerobic,
(2) facultative and
(3) aerobic (maturation),
each with different treatment and design characteristics. WSPs are low-cost for O&M
and BOD and pathogen removal is high. However, large surface areas and expert design

10 | P a g e
 are required. Effluent contains nutrients (e.g. N and P) and is therefore appropriate for
reuse in agriculture, but not for direct discharge in surface waters.

4.2.2 Mechanically Aerated Lagoon

Mechanically aerated lagoons are earthen basins generally 2.5 to 5m deep, provided
with mechanical aerators installed on floats or fixed columns. Raw sewage is fed from
one end into lagoon (after screening) and it leaves from the other end after desired period
of aeration. Aerated lagoons are smaller in size (less than 10-20%) compared to waste
stabilization ponds. Three types of aerated lagoons can be distinguished as mentioned
below:
1. Facultative aerated Lagoons
Facultative aerated lagoons consist of a shallow basin in which settleable solids
introduced by the wastewater settle to the bottom to form a sludge layer that decomposes
anaerobically. Biodegradable organic materials that do not settle are degraded
aerobically. The term facultative aerated describes the aerobic-anaerobic nature of the
lagoon - an anaerobic bottom region covered by an aerobic top layer. Process of
oxygenation is enhanced through floating aerators in upper section of lagoon. Lower
section of lagoon maintains anaerobic conditions. The power input per unit volume is
only sufficient for diffusing required amount of oxygen into liquid, but not sufficient
for maintaining all the solids in suspension (Figure – 3).
Consequently, some of the suspended solids entering the Lagoon and some of the new
solids produced in the lagoon as a result of substrate removal tend to settle down and
undergo anaerobic decomposition at the bottom. They are capable of giving 70-90%
BOD removal from domestic sewage.

Figure 3: Mechanical aerated facultative lagoon

11 | P a g e
2. Aerobic flow-through Lagoons
Aerobic flow-through lagoons use aerators to mix the effluent in the pond and add
oxygen to the wastewater. In aerobic flow through lagoons, oxygen transfer is
maintained throughout the depth of the lagoon. The power level is high enough not only
to diffuse adequate oxygen into the liquid but also to keep all solids in suspension as in
an activated sludge aeration tank (Figure – 4). Additional treatment (such as
stabilization pond) is necessary if better BOD and solid removal is desired.

Figure 4 Mechanical aerated flow through type lagoon

3. Aerobic lagoons with recycling of solids

In aerobic lagoons, oxygenation of effluent and retention of recyclable solids is carried
out. In these lagoons, power input level is sufficient to meet the oxygen requirement as
well as to keep all solids in suspension. The efficiency of BOD removal in these types
of lagoons can be as high as 95-98%. and nitrification can also be achieved (Figure –
5).

Figure 5: Typical mechanical aerated lagoon system

12 | P a g e
5. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES FOR REJUVENATION OF DRAINS
The effective biological in-situ treatment system should need the following
requirements:
i) In situ treatment should be different from conventional centralized or de-
centralized treatment system.
ii) It should be a rapid system having commissioning time of less than six to twelve
months.
iii) The in situ treatment system should have the ability to treat the sewage in a
continuous manner throughout the year.
iv) The treatment system must have a well-defined inlet and outlet along with
minimum modification in natural drain structure.
v) The treatment system should work on zero/negligible power consumption.
vi) The treatment system should have a designed life and minimum operational
constraints.
vii) It should not have high capital cost and recurring cost as compared with
conventional ex situ treatment technology currently in practice.
viii) The design life should be up to 15 years at optimum operation condition.
ix) In case of drains having flow >20 MLD, the system may be developed in modular
form having 2-3 blocks of treatment within one treatment stretch.
x) The treatment system must be capable of degrading/reducing the soluble and
insoluble organic materials.
xi) Removal efficiency of soluble BOD at the final designated outlet should not be
less than 60% in terms of organic load reduction with treated wastewater quality
at designated outlet of pH 6.5-8.5, DO ≥5mg/land BOD ≤ 20 mg/l, whichever is
stringent.
xii) In-situ treatment shall be accompanied with pre-treatment/ physical solid liquid
separation as drains carry large quantity of solid waste.
xiii) The generated sludge must be quantified and cleaned based on requirement
preferentially at every 15 days within the defined stretch. If required, dredging
should be done to maintain the depth.
xiv) The system must not hinder the flow and not result in ponding at the upstream site
of the drain.
xv) Flow measuring device (such as V-notch, EM meter etc.) may be installed at the
inlet/outlet of the treatment stretch so as to control the treatment based on flow
and assessment of daily treated volume.
xvi) Treatment system shall be installed at such a location/manner and for such volume
of drains that the treated effluent quality at defined outlet shall be maintained
throughout the entire downstream stretch of the drain till confluence with the
river. If required, treatment system could be set up in series in entire drain stretch.
xvii) Treatment system shall be set up for inlet wastewater quality of BOD≥40mg/l.

13 | P a g e
6. SCHEMES/MODELS FOR DIFFERENT ORDERS OF DRAIN
Categorization of drains are made based on the experience of drain monitoring in Ganga
Catchment. Schemes/ Models defined for treatment are generic and suggestive in nature and
any application of such model requires specific design as per site requirements. The land
requirements mentioned are indicative and it shall be worked out as per the design criteria.
Summary of different treatment schemes is shown in table 1
6.1 Model 1: Minor sewage drain with moderate pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 20 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Oxidation ponds/ Facultative pond (1-2 no.) + Physical Treatment unit
+ wetland/phytoremediation or waste stabilization pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying moderate
pollution load sewage with wide channel suitable for in-situ construction. This type of model
is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd order
drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed. The ridges
are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth requirement for
such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure 6). In in-situ treatment
techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area calculation whereas
available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for in-situ is dependent on
length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 6 Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation

14 | P a g e
6.2 Model 2: Minor sewage drain with moderate pollution load & wide channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : 3-15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 20 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Oxidation ponds/ Facultative pond (1-2 no.) + Physical Treatment unit
+ wetland/phytoremediation or waste stabilization pond

c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying moderate
pollution load sewage with wide channel suitable for in-situ construction. This type of model
is suitable for 2nd and 3rd order drains. For hilly areas, such system has to be developed in the
marshy depressions/valleys. In other words, it will be developed at the confluence of the
drain with depression /low lying area in the valley.

d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 2nd and 3rd order
drain, dimensions of oxidation pond and a wetland need to be customised based on the
available flow width to provide the required hydraulic time of at least 20 hr in oxidation pond
and wetland system. Treatment scheme configuration may be customised In-situ/ Ex-situ
based on the flow width. Area and depth requirement for such system shall be worked out as
per design criteria (Figure – 7).
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 7 Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation

15 | P a g e
6.3 Model 3: Minor sewage drain with moderate pollution load & narrow channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : < 3 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 20 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Oxidation ponds/ Facultative pond (1-2 no.) + Physical Treatment
unit + wetland/phytoremediation or waste stabilization pond or Ex-Situ Activated
Sludge Method
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying moderate
pollution load sewage with channel width of less than 3m. This type of model is suitable
for 3rd or higher order drains. For hilly areas, such system has to developed in the
marshy depressions/valleys. In other words, it will be developed at the confluence of
the drain with depression /low lying area in the valley.
d) Design aspect: Due to less flow width, In- situ treatment is generally not feasible in
these categories of drains. Ex situ model may be best suitable for providing sufficient
hydraulic retention time in oxidation pond + wetland system or Waste Stabilization
Pond as per the space available. Area and depth requirement for such system shall be
worked out as per design criteria (Figure – 8).
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 8 Schematic layout of ex-situ Biological Remediation

16 | P a g e
6.4 Model 4: Minor sewage drain with high pollution load &broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 0.5 - 2 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : ˃100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 20 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment unit + constructed wetland system
or Waste Stabilization Pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying high pollution
load (untreated sewage + industrial effluent) with channel width more than 15 m. This type
of model is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd order
drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed. The ridges
are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth requirement for
such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure – 9). In in-situ treatment
techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area calculation whereas
available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for in-situ is dependent on
length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 9: Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

17 | P a g e
6.5 Model 5: Minor sewage drain with high pollution load & wide channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : 3- 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 0.5 - 2 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : ˃100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 20 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment unit + constructed wetland system
or Waste Stabilization Pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying high pollution
load (untreated sewage + industrial effluent) with channel width 3-15 m. This type of model
is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 2nd and 3rd order
drain, dimensions of oxidation pond and a wetland need to be customised based on the
available flow width to provide the required hydraulic time of at least 20 hr in oxidation pond
and wetland system. Treatment scheme configuration may be customised In-situ/ Ex-situ
based on the flow width. Area and depth requirement for such system shall be worked out as
per design criteria (Figure 10).

e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 50 Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

18 | P a g e
6.6 Model 6: Minor sewage drain with high pollution load& narrow channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : < 3 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 0.5 - 2 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : ˃100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 20 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Oxidation pond + wetland system or Waste Stabilization Pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying only low
pollution load untreated sewage with channel width of less than 3m. This type of model is
suitable for 3rd or higher order drains.
d) Design aspect: Due to less flow width, In- situ treatment is generally not feasible in these
categories of drains. Ex situ model may be best suitable for providing sufficient hydraulic
retention time in oxidation pond +wetland system or Waste Stabilization Pond as per the
space available. Area and depth requirement for such system shall be worked out as per
design criteria (Figure – 11).

e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 11: Schematic layout of ex-situ Biological Remediation.

19 | P a g e
6.7 Model 7: Medium sewage drain with low pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 50 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 50 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (1-2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond +
wetland/phytoremediation or Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment unit + Constructed
wetland or waste stabilisation pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying only low
pollution load sewage with wide channel suitable for in-situ construction. This type of
model is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd
order drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed.
The ridges are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth
requirement for such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure – 12). In
in-situ treatment techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area
calculation whereas available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design
for in-situ is dependent on length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 62 Schematic layout of ex-situ Biological Remediation

20 | P a g e
6.8 Model 8: Medium sewage drain with low pollution load & wide channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : 3- 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 2 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 50 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 50 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (1-2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond +
wetland/phytoremediation or Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment unit + Constructed
wetland or waste stabilisation pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying only low
pollution load untreated sewage with channel width of 3-15m. This type of model is
suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 2nd and 3rd
order drain, dimensions of oxidation pond and a wetland need to be customised based on
the available flow width to provide the required hydraulic time of at least 20 hr in oxidation
pond and wetland system. Treatment scheme configuration may be customised as In-situ/
Ex-situ based on the flow width. Area and depth requirement for such system shall be
worked out as per design criteria (Figure – 13).
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 13 Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

21 | P a g e
6.9 Model 9: Medium sewage drain with moderate pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 50 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (1-2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond +
wetland/phytoremediation or Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment unit + Constructed
wetland or waste stabilisation pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying moderate
pollution load sewage with wide channel suitable for in-situ construction. This type of model
is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd order
drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed. The ridges
are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth requirement for
such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure 14). In in-situ treatment
techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area calculation whereas
available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for in-situ is dependent on
length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 14: Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

22 | P a g e
6.10 Model 10: Medium sewage drain with moderate pollution load & wide channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : 3- 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 2 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 50 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (1-2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond +
wetland/phytoremediation or Oxidation pond (2 no.) + Physical Treatment unit -2 no.) +
Constructed wetland or waste stabilisation pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying moderate
pollution load untreated sewage with channel width of 3-15m. This type of model is
suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 2nd and 3rd
order drain, dimensions of oxidation pond and a wetland need to be customised based on
the available flow width to provide the required hydraulic time of at least 20 hr in oxidation
pond and wetland system. Treatment scheme configuration may be customised as In-situ/
Ex-situ based on the flow width. Area and depth requirement for such system shall be
worked out as per design criteria (Figure – 15).
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 15: Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

23 | P a g e
6.11 Model 11: Medium sewage drain with high pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : ˃ 100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 50 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (1-2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond +
wetland/phytoremediation or Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment unit + Constructed
wetland or waste stabilisation pond
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying high pollution
load (untreated sewage + industrial effluent) with wide channel suitable for in-situ
construction. This type of model is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd
order drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed.
The ridges are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth
requirement for such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure 16). In in-
situ treatment techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area calculation
whereas available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for in-situ is
dependent on length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 76: Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

24 | P a g e
6.12 Model 12: Medium sewage drain with very high pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : ˃ 200 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : < 50 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Pond with mud ball technology + Facultative ponds (1-2 no.) +
Lagoon + oxidation pond + Lagoon+ wetland or Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment
unit + Constructed wetland
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying high pollution
load (untreated sewage + industrial effluent) with wide channel suitable for in-situ
construction. This type of model is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd
order drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed.
The ridges are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth
requirement for such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure – 17). In
in-situ treatment techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area
calculation whereas available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for
in-situ is dependent on length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 8 Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

25 | P a g e
6.13 Model 13: Major sewage drain with low high pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 50 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : 50 -100 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (1-2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond + Lagoon+
wetland or Oxidation pond + Physical Treatment unit + Constructed wetland
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying low pollution
load (untreated sewage only) with wide channel suitable for in-situ construction. This type
of model is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd
order drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed.
The ridges are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth
requirement for such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure 18). In in-
situ treatment techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area calculation
whereas available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for in-situ is
dependent on length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 18: Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

26 | P a g e
6.14 Model 14: Major sewage drain with moderate pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 100 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : 50 -100 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond + Lagoon+
wetland or Oxidation pond (2 no.) + Physical Treatment unit (2 no.) + Constructed wetland
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme is suitable for drains carrying low pollution
load (untreated sewage only) with wide channel suitable for in-situ construction. This type
of model is suitable for 1st and 2nd order drains.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd
order drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed.
The ridges are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth
requirement for such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure 19). In in-
situ treatment techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area calculation
whereas available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for in-situ is
dependent on length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 19: Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

27 | P a g e
6.15 Model 15: Major sewage drain with low pollution load & broader channel
a) Drain hydrological characteristics:
 Physical Characteristics of Drainage System
Width of Drain : ˃ 15 Meter
Depth of Flowing Water : 1 - 3 Meter
 Organic Loading
BOD : < 50 mg/l
 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : ˃100 MLD
b) Treatment scheme: Facultative ponds (2 no.) + Lagoon + oxidation pond (2 no.) +
Lagoon+ wetland or Oxidation pond (2 no.) + Physical Treatment unit (2 no.) +
Constructed wetland
c) Applicability: This type of treatment scheme can be used for biological remediation of
polluted rivulets /rivers/major storm drains of cities by channelizing the drain bed up to 15
channels (distribution channels) and the CW stretch may extend up to 1000 m (1 km) and
there may be more than 15 such stretches across a distance of 500 km (linear). The width
of gabions should be at least more than 4m, as the river carry storm water.
d) Design aspect: Depending on the space availability and the flow rates of the 1st and 2nd
order drain, oxidation pond, and a wetland with furrows and ridges should be developed.
The ridges are made of stones/ pebbles specified in the typical model. Area and depth
requirement for such system shall be worked out as per design criteria (Figure – 20). In in-
situ treatment techniques, length of the drain is only variable parameter for area calculation
whereas available width of drain will remain fixed. Therefore, any design for in-situ is
dependent on length of the drain.
e) Schematic diagram:

Figure 20: Schematic layout of in-situ Biological Remediation.

28 | P a g e
 Table 1: Decision matrix for design of In-Situ / Ex-situ remediation techniques

Model Description Flow BOD Drain Treatment Technology Technology Remarks

no. (MLD) Conc. Width Type
(mg/l) (m)
1. Minor sewage drain with < 20 < 100 ˃ 15 Oxidation pond/ Facultative In situ Lagoon sludge removal
moderate pollution load & pond+ Lagoon+ Wetland or frequency – every 3 month, ponds
broader channel Waste Stabilization Pond or HRT 20 hr min.
In-situ Activated Sludge
Method

2. Minor sewage drain with < 20 < 100 3-15 Oxidation pond/ Facultative In situ/ Ex Treatment unit may be in situ/ex
moderate pollution load & pond + Lagoon situ situ as per available space
wide channel Wetland/phytoremediation
or Constructed Wet Land (
CWS)
3. Minor sewage drain with < 20 < 100 <3 Oxidation pond/ Facultative In situ/ Ex Oxidation pond will be ex situ &
moderate pollution load & pond + Lagoon situ wet land may be in situ/ ex situ
narrow channel Wetland/phytoremediation
or Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
4. Minor sewage drain with < 20 ˃ 100 ˃ 15 Facultative pond/Trickling In situ Sludge may be recycled partly in
high pollution load & filter + Lagoon Facultative Trickling filler. Toxic
broader channel Wetland/phytoremediation sludge need to be disposed as per
or Constructed Wet Land guideline
(CWS)

29 | P a g e
Model Description Flow BOD Drain Treatment Technology Technology Remarks
no. (MLD) Conc. Width Type
(mg/l) (m)
5. Minor sewage drain with < 20 ˃ 100 3-15 Facultative pond/Trickling In situ/ Ex All Treatment units may be in
high pollution load & wide filter + Lagoon situ situ/ex situ as per available space
channel Wetland/phytoremediation
or Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
6. Minor sewage drain with < 20 ˃ 100 <3 Facultative pond/Trickling In situ/ Ex Pond/filter/Lagoon will be ex situ
high pollution load & filter + Lagoon situ & wet land may be in situ/ ex situ
narrow channel Wetland/phytoremediation
or Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
7. Medium sewage drain < 50 < 50 ˃ 15 Facultative pond + Lagoon + In situ Lagoon removal efficiency – 1-3
with low pollution load & Oxidation pond +Wetland or months
broader channel Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
8. Medium sewage drain < 50 < 50 3-15 Facultative pond + Lagoon + In situ/ Ex All Treatment unit may be in
with low pollution load & Oxidation pond +Wetland or situ situ/ex situ as per available space
wide channel Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
9. Medium sewage drain < 50 < 100 ˃ 15 Facultative pond + Lagoon + In situ Lagoon removal efficiency – 1-3
with moderate pollution Oxidation pond (1-2 no.) + months, pond HRT 20 Hr
load & broader channel Lagoon+ Wetland or minimum
Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)

30 | P a g e
Model Description Flow BOD Drain Treatment Technology Technology Remarks
no. (MLD) Conc. Width Type
(mg/l) (m)
10. Medium sewage drain < 50 < 100 3-15 Facultative pond + Lagoon + In situ/ Ex All Treatment units may be in
with moderate pollution Oxidation pond (1-2 no.) + situ situ/ex situ as per available space
load & wide channel Lagoon+ Wetland or
Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
11. Medium sewage drain < 50 ˃ 100 ˃ 15 Facultative pond (2 no.) + In situ Lagoon removal efficiency – 1-3
with high pollution load & Lagoon + Oxidation pond months, pond HRT 20 Hr
broader channel (1-2 no.) + Lagoon+ minimum
Wetland or Constructed Wet
Land (CWS)
12. Medium sewage drain < 50 ˃ 200 ˃ 15 Pond with mud ball In situ Lagoon removal efficiency – 1-3
with very high pollution technology Facultative pond months, pond HRT 20 Hr
load & broader channel (2 no.) + Lagoon + minimum
Oxidation pond (1-2 no.) +
Lagoon+ Wetland or
Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
13. Major sewage drain with 50-100 < 50 ˃ 15 Facultative pond + In situ Lagoon removal efficiency – 1-3
low high pollution load & Oxidation pond (1-2 no.)+ months
broader channel Lagoon + +Wetland or
Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
14. Major sewage drain with 50-100 < 100 ˃ 15 Facultative pond + In situ Lagoon removal efficiency – 1-3
moderate pollution load & Oxidation pond (1-2 no.)+ months, pond HRT 20 Hr
broader channel Lagoon + +Wetland or minimum

31 | P a g e
Model Description Flow BOD Drain Treatment Technology Technology Remarks
no. (MLD) Conc. Width Type
(mg/l) (m)
Constructed Wet Land
(CWS)
15. Major sewage drain with ˃ 100 < 50 ˃ 15 Facultative pond (2 no.) + In situ Lagoon removal efficiency – 1-3
low pollution load & Lagoon + Oxidation pond months, pond HRT 20 Hr
broader channel (1-2 no.) + Lagoon+ minimum
Wetland or Constructed Wet
Land (CWS)
Note: All above models are generic in nature and actual design may vary as per actual site specific requirement

32 | P a g e
7. CHALLENGES WITH APPLICATION OF ALTERNATIVE BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
 Application of any in-situ bioremediation of wastewater requires obstruction wall (check
dam / weir) to slow down the velocity of flowing water. Any flowing wastewater in storm
water drains carry huge volume of floating material (solid waste, plastic waste etc.) and
silt. Such obstruction to slow down of the velocity of wastewater results in trapping of
floating material and deposition of silt.
 Siltation of drains will result in ponding of wastewater in upstream of such structures that
may also result in flooding of upstream areas. Therefore, provisions must be made for
regular removal and proper disposal of deposited silt. Floating matter collected also need
to be disposed off in scientific manner.
 Spacing between the gabions need to be cleaned on regular basis as it may get choked
with silt and floating materials.
 Efficiency decrease in monsoon due to high flow.
 It needs regular harvest of biomass and cleaning of physical filters.
 Difficult to operate when depth of water in drain is more than three feet.
 Slow process as compared to conventional treatment.
 Not effective in backwater, flood water from river on high tides.
8. CASE STUDIES ON DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
Case studies of some of the wastewater interception, diversion and treatment facilities
based on alternative treatment technologies namely constructed wetland, soil
biotechnology, oxidation pond, trickling filter and aerated lagoon are as under:
8.1 Constructed Wetland
a) Constructed wetland has been established at Neela Hauz lake near Sanjay Van by
Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems (CEMDE), Delhi
University in collaboration with DDA. The lake is fed by discharge from drain having
01 MLD flow. The constructed wetland effectively results in 90% reduction in BOD
and has resulted in restoration of the Neela Hauz lake which was practically dead due
to high pollution load. The project was started in November, 2016 and is currently in
operation; it was constructed at a cost of Rs. 10 lakhs and requires annual harvest of
dead biomass and annual cleaning of physical filters and removal of sludge from
oxidation ponds.
b) In-situ constructed wetland system at Rajokari water body was installed by Irrigation
and Flood Control Department, Delhi with a project cost of Rs. 77.19 lakhs. The water
body is fed by a drain having flow of 600 KLD. There is 84% reduction in BOD in the
water body post construction of the wetland. The wetland is currently in operation.
c) Ex-situ remediation for water body rejuvenation through Phytorid technology
developed by CSIR-NEERI. This project has been implemented Pan India in 300 sites
and is currently in operation in all the sites. The cost of the project was Rs 2.2 crore per

33 | P a g e
 MLD for civil construction and O&M of Rs 20 Lakhs per MLD (including manpower,
consumables, electricity, testing, contingency and miscellaneous items). The land
requirement for the project is 1500 m2 per MLD. The technology is highly efficient
with BOD and TSS of treated water reduced to ≤ 10 mg/l and ≤ 30 mg/l respectively.
d) In-situ restoration of drains viable for flow between 1-10 MLD through RENEU
Technology developed by CSIR-NEERI. The restoration of six drains in Jhusi,
Prayagraj was undertaken through this technology while work order has been received
to implement RENEU in 10 drains at Gorakhpur. For implementation of this
technology, drains having 1-10 MLD require a stretch of 180-200m while for drains
having flow greater than 10 MLD, the stretch required will be 200-600m. The cost of
the project was Rs Rs835 Lakhs per MLD for civil construction and O&M of Rs Rs255
Lakhs per MLD (including manpower, consumables, electricity, testing, contingency
and miscellaneous items). The technology demonstrates 40% reduction in pollution
with BOD and TSS of treated water reduced to ≤ 30 mg/l and ≤ 30 mg/l respectively.
e) Constructed wetlands are under commissioning at Bithoor to treat 2.4 MLD sewage
generated from seven drains directly discharging in River Ganga from Bithoor town.
The constructed wetlands are designed for in-situ treatment of sewage. During the last
visit by CPCB officials, the wetlands were found to be under construction.

8.2 Soil Biotechnology

a) In Bah Bazar STP at Devprayag, soil biotechnology is adopted for treatment of 1.4
MLD sewage. An inspection of the STP by CPCB officials revealed that through soil
biotechnology, a BOD and COD reduction of 80% and 76.39% respectively was
achieved while TSS levels reduced by 78.53% and ammonical nitrogen showed a
reduction of 66.66%. Thus, soil biotechnology is an effective treatment technology with
only one drawback being that TDS reduced by only 6.48%.

8.3 Waste Stabilization Pond

a) In Anupshahar, an STP of 1.75 MLD at STP Zone B has adopted waste stabilization
pond technology with five ponds in series for sewage treatment. The analysis report of
treated samples from the STP indicated 96.77% reduction in BOD, 92.27% reduction
in COD and 100% reduction in TSS. Phosphate and sulphate content also reduced by
52.67% and 35.71% respectively. However, it was observed that nitrate content reduced
only by 3.84% and there was no reduction in TDS, faecal coliform. Thus, treated
samples were found to comply with general discharge standards.

b) At STP of 0.85 MLD situated in Zone A of Anupshahar, U.P., the treatment technology
is waste stabilization through five ponds in series for sewage treatment. The analysis
report of treated samples from the STP indicated 74.48% reduction in BOD, 59% in
COD and 81.39% in TSS. Also, there was marginal reduction in TDS (3.08%), sulphate
(20.51%), chloride (10.2%) and phosphate (5.91%). However, there was increase in
ammonical nitrogen by 22.72% and faecal coliform levels remained unchanged. The
treated effluent complied with general discharge standards thus indicating that the in-
situ treatment technology is effective despite increase in ammonical nitrogen.

34 | P a g e
 c) At the Vindhyachal STP of 4 MLD capacity located in Mirzapur, U.P., waste
stabilization pond technology has been adopted with a total of four ponds (with three
different functions); first pond is anaerobic (28.4 mx49.6x5.5m), second is facultative
(75.4 m x 148.5 m x 2.0 m), and two are maturation ponds (Maturation-1: 55.45 m x
150.4 m x 1.45 m; Maturation – 2: 56.5m x 150.4 m x 1.55 m). Analysis of samples
from final outlet indicated a reduction of 77.5% in BOD, 75% in COD and 63.69% in
TSS.
8.4 Oxidation Pond
a) In the Fatehgarh STP of 2.7 MLD capacity, situated in FARRUKHABAD, the in-situ
sewage treatment technology adopted involves primary oxidation ponds (2 in number)
each of dimension 100m × 150m × 1.2 m, followed by secondary oxidation pond. The
treated effluent is discharged into river Ganga. As per analysis report, the STP was
found non-complying w.r.t general discharge standards for pH, BOD and TSS.
However, BOD and COD showed a reduction of 53.98% and 34.95% respectively while
ammonical nitrogen and phosphate levels reduced by 95.1% and 97.36% respectively.
b) In the 6 MLD capacity STP at Baidyabati in West Bengal, there are a total of three
lagoons in series for treatment of sewage before maturation pond. The analysis of
treated sample indicated BOD and COD reduction of 78.57% and 27.3% respectively.
However, during inspection by CPCB officials, it was observed lagoons are
eutrophicated while baffle walls and embankment are partially damaged.

9.0 AN EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED TREATMENT SCHEME

A typical first order drain having flow of 500 MLD with physical characteristics like length
– 20 km, width of drain varying between 30-90 meter and organic loading of 100-250 mg/l
of BOD may adopt in-situ constructed wetland system with horizontal and free-flowing
system. This system will have two oxidation ponds, two physical treatment units and a
constructed wetland.

The two oxidation units of 100 m long each are separated by three gabions; the two physical
treatment units of 75 m long each and have vertical channels separated by gabions. The
constructed wetland is of 150 m length and has 15 furrows of 8 m width, separated by 15
ridges of 2 m width. The schematic layout of the proposed constructed wetland is given in
figure-21. Depending upon the width of the drain, the number of vertical channels varies
and also length and height of gabions varies from site to site. Further design details of each
unit are mentioned below:
1. Oxidation Pond:
Depth: Gabions of 4m width with height of 2.5 meter;
Width: As per availability (15-90 meter)
Length: 100 meter
Number of Oxidation Pond: 02
2. Physical Filters:

35 | P a g e
 Vertical channels: Width upto 8 meter, height 1-5 meter, length 75-100 meter and
number of channels varies as per width of drain
Depth: Gabions of 2m width with height of 1.5 meter;
Number of Physical Filters: 02
3. Constructed Wetland Systems
Depth: Gabions of 2m width with height of 1.5 meter;
Length- 150 m long
15 furrows of 8 m wide separated by 15 ridges of 2 m wide
Actual design may vary as per available physical characteristics and organic loading
of drain
 Expected Outcome
BOD removal: 50-70 % reduction

Figure 21: Schematic diagram of In-situ Remediation

36 | P a g e
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Inputs provided in the preparation of models alternate biological treatment techniques for
drains by Prof.C.R. Babu, Professor Emeritus, Centre for Environmental Management of
Degraded Ecosystem, University of Delhi, Prof. P. K. Mishra, Head, Department of
Chemical Engineering & Technology, IIT-BHU, Varanasi; Prof. S.N. Upadhyay, Ex
Director, IIT-BHU, Varanasi and Prof. C.B. Majumdar, Head, Department of Chemical
Engineering, IIT Roorkee are acknowledged.

37 | P a g e
 ANNEXURE-I
DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE DETAIL OF EX-SITU TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
Design Criteria
 Requirement of Physical Characteristic of Drainage System
Length of drain : 2-20 Km
Width of drain : 2-15 m
Depth of flowing water : 0.5 2 m

 Organic Loading
BOD : 100-250 mg/l
COD : 150-500 mg/l

 Hydraulic Loading
Flow : 2-20 MLD
Volumetric loading : 100-400 BOD g/m3.day
Typical characteristics of different types of Ex-Situ treatment technologies for treating
domestic sewage are mentioned in table below:
SL. Characteristic Facultative Aerobic flow Aerobic with solids Oxidation
No type through type recycling Pond
Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon
1. Suspended solids 50-150 100-350 3000-5000 -
concentration ,
mg/l
2. Sludge age or mean High Generally 5 Warm:10-20 -
cell residence time (because of Temperate:20-30
, days settlement) Cold: over 30
3. Overall BOD 0.6-0.8 1-1.5 20-30 -
removal rate KL per
day at 20 0 C
4. Temperature 1.035 1.035 1.01-1.05
coefficient,
5. Detention time, 3-12 Generally 5 0.5-2 7-15 days
days
6. BOD removal 70-90 50-60 95-98 80-90%
efficiency, %
7. Nitrification None Non favorable Likely under -
conditions
8. Coliform removal, 60-99 60-90 60-90 99%
%
9. Depth, m 2.5-5 2.5-5 2.5-5 1-1.5 m
10. Land requirement,
m2/MLD 2200 2200 1111 8800
11. Power requirement, 12-15 12-14 18-24 -

38 | P a g e
SL. Characteristic Facultative Aerobic flow Aerobic with solids Oxidation
No type through type recycling Pond
Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon
KW/Person -year
12. Minimum power 0.75-1 2.75-5 15-18 -
level, KW/1000 m3
lagoon volume
13. Sludge Accumulates No accumulation; Surplus sludge Accumulates
in lagoon; solids go out with withdrawn in Oxidation
manual effluent continuously (daily) Pond; manual
removal after and disposed off removal after
some years suitably some years
14. Outlet management Effluent Partially or fully Weir or pipe Weir or pipe
flows over a submerged pipe
weir outlet

39 | P a g e