AN ASSESSMENT OF SMALL-SCALE

STP TECHNOLOGIES: INDIA

Examples, performance, and cost for three common STP
types

MAY 2017

The Sanitation Technology Platform

Please Note: This report is a good faith effort by RTI International to accurately represent information available via secondary and
primary sources at the time of the information capture. The report is confidential and proprietary and only for internal uses and not for
publication or public disclosure.
 Task Design & Background

Overview of Data Set

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP Descriptions and Observed Configurations

Feature and Performance Comparison for 3 STP Types

Cost Comparison for 3 STP Types

Additional Market Observations

Examples of Each STP Type

 TASK DESIGN & BACKGROUND
This study is intended to help partners better
understand existing small-scale STPs in India.
The Sanitation Technology Platform (STeP), with the
support of the Gates Foundation, aims to support
commercialization and market entry of novel
sanitation technologies. Understanding
configurations, features, performance, and cost of
existing small-scale sewage treatment plants (STPs)
is critical for partners of the Foundation—specifically
for helping them make informed decisions related to
new systems being developed for the Reinvented
Toilet (RT) program.
3
This report is intended to help:
• Technology-development partners better
understand configurations, features,
performance, and cost of relevant small-scale
systems, so that new RT designs can be best
positioned to compete with the existing/accepted
technologies in India; and
• Technology commercialization partners to better
understand the existing market for STPs in India,
so that they can make more informed business
decisions on taking RT technologies to market.
Price curves for existing small-scale STPs in India
are a critical part of this understanding.
 TASK DESIGN & BACKGROUND

Obtaining detailed data for existing small-scale STPs in

India requires a disciplined approach.
Partners may find gaining access to and interpreting
information on small-scale STPs in India problematic.
Prior difficulties have included:
• Obtaining data for technologies at a relevant
scale—much of the data available tends to be for
larger municipal-scale sewage treatment systems.
However, this scale is not as relevant for RT (i.e.,
cost data does not translate).
• Understanding the exact configuration/set-up of
real small-scale systems and lack of common
definitions and terminology used to describe
them—many of the systems are derived from a
few base technologies, but are outfitted with a
mix of features and components that lead to a
broad array of complete systems. These systems
often have varying features, input requirements,
and effluent standards.
• Understanding the quality level of the effluent
produced by specific small-scale systems in order
to draw comparisons based on performance.
• Understanding what exactly is included in capital
costs for these small-scale systems; partners of
the Foundation will specifically need to
understand price curves (CAPEX of systems over
treatment capacity) for different system types.

4
 TASK DESIGN & BACKGROUND

STeP identified/characterized examples of 3 common

types of small-scale STPs in India: MBBR, SBR, and MBR.
The aim of this targeted task was to obtain detailed These STP types were chosen because they
information on decentralized, small-scale sewage represent three of the more common, smaller-scale
treatment systems in India, with a focus on STP systems in India that would likely compete with
configuration, performance, and capital/operations RT-program technologies.
costs of specific systems.
STeP determined that the following three STP types
were highest priority for this task:
• Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
• Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
• Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)

5
 TASK DESIGN & BACKGROUND

The task focused on MBBRs, SBRs, and MBRs in urban areas

with treatment capacities of less than ~100 kl per day.
The task focused on identifying and characterizing decentralized, small-scale STPs with all of the following
characteristics:
• Systems based on either MBBR, SBR, or MBR;
• Existing systems installed in urban areas in India (preferably recently installed systems); and
• Treatment capacities less than ~100 kiloliters per day (KLD), which correlates to ~100 m3/day, and
anywhere in the range of approximately 10–100 KLD.*

Key data/information collected for each STP included:

- Description of specific system components/equipment - Reported effluent treatment levels
- Location - Sludge output
- Type of end user served - Footprint of system
- Installation year - Energy requirements
- System lifetime - Cost data including capital and operations costs
- System capacity

*Note that the standard way to describe STP capacity in India is kiloliters per day (or KLD), so this term will be used to describe capacity throughout the
following document. However, KLD is the same as cubic meters per day (m3/day).

6
 TASK DESIGN & BACKGROUND

The majority of data was provided by STP vendors as well

as contractors who install or operate/maintain systems.
Data was collected based on primary research—phone interviews, meetings, and email communications—
with key players in the value chain. Key players contacted for this task included:
• STP suppliers (or vendors)
• Contractors who install these systems—often the same entity as STP suppliers
• Contractors who operate and maintain these systems—often the same entity as STP suppliers
• Consultants who help builders select and/or engineer STPs
• Developers and/or building owners
• End users
STeP contacted approximately 120 people as part of this process. The vast majority of information obtained
for the task was provided by STP suppliers, contractors who install these systems, and/or contractors who
operate and maintain these systems.

7
 Task Design & Background

Overview of Data Set

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP Descriptions and Observed Configurations

Feature and Performance Comparison for 3 STP Types

Cost Comparison for 3 STP Types

Additional Market Observations

Examples of Each STP Type

 OVERVIEW OF DATA SET

STeP collected data for 81 small-scale STP installations

serving various end-use types.
Total Installations
STP Type Installations by End-Use Type
Identified
Residential 16
Commercial 11
MBBR 46
Industrial 13
Other 6
Residential 12
Commercial 9
SBR 25
Industrial 1
Other 3
Residential 0
Commercial 0
MBR 10
Industrial 10
Other 0
The complete set of data for the 81 STP installations is available in Number of installations in data set by STP type and end-use type
spreadsheet format to RT partners upon request.

About the Data Set

• STeP collected data for 81 STP installations, representing • Installations in the data set serve a variety of end users,
over 20 different suppliers/vendors. including residential, commercial, and industrial users.
• Because STeP relied on the willingness/ability of value-chain • “Other” users include hospitals, health-care facilities,
players to provide this data, it was not feasible to acquire educational institutions, and religious institutions.
information for every parameter of interest at every
installation.
• The information provided was not independently verified.

9
 OVERVIEW OF DATA SET

STeP collected STP data from locations across India.

About the Data Set

• Data was obtained for installations in 16 different Indian
states.
• The states with the largest number of installations by STP type
are as follows:
– For MBBRs - Maharashtra (22 of 46), followed by Gujarat (9
of 46)
– For SBRs - Tamil Nadu (11 of 25), followed by Karnataka (5
of 25)
– For MBRs - Maharashtra (3 of 10)

10
 Task Design & Background

Overview of Data Set

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP Descriptions and Observed Configurations

Feature and Performance Comparison for 3 STP Types

Cost Comparison for 3 STP Types

Additional Market Observations

Examples of Each STP Type

 STP DESCRIPTIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS

Moving Bed Bioreactor (MBBR)—Process Overview

Process Description
MBBRs biologically treat wastewater by circulating moving media
in aerobic, activated-sludge environments. The moving media is
typically a floating plastic substrate colonized by a community of
bacteria. These bacteria form a biofilm on the plastic surface.
Increased levels of biofilm enhance the biological treatment
process by introducing a more robust microbial community. In
addition to the biofilm attached to the plastic carriers, biomass in
the system also exists in the form of suspended flocks. At smaller
scales* in India, MBBR tanks were found to be constructed of
reinforced concrete or mild steel. Some suppliers also offer fiber
reinforced polymer (FRP) tanks.

Source: Makes India Clean (http://www.makesindiaclean.com/mbbr/)

Advantages Disadvantages
• Can operate at high organic loads • Is a manually operated process
• Is less prone to hydraulic overloading than other STP types • Generally offers a lower level of wastewater treatment than
MBR-based systems
• Is relatively easy to operate—does not require advanced
skills for operation/maintenance
• Generally has lower capital costs than MBR-based systems
• Requires a relatively small footprint
• Eliminates issues with media becoming clogged (compared
to fixed film systems)

12 *For the purposes of this report, “smaller scales” refer to systems with a capacity of </= ~100 KLD.
 STP DESCRIPTIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS

MBBR-based systems—most commonly observed

configuration at a scale of </= ~100 KLD
PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY

Sodium
Equalization Moving Bed
Bar Screen Clarifier Hypochlorite Filtration
Tank Bioreactor
Dosing

Sludge
Dewatering

Observed Variations in Configuration

• Primary Treatment • Tertiary Treatment
– This stage may include an oil and grease separator (or – For several installations, a sodium-hypochlorite stage is
trap). not reported.
• Secondary Treatment – One system uses ozone rather than sodium hypochlorite.
– The clarifier is sometimes referred to as a tube settler or a – One system includes UV treatment.
settling tank.
– Filtration typically includes an activated carbon filter
– Sludge dewatering methods include sludge drying beds, (ACF), often combined with either a pressure sand filter
filter presses, or centrifuges. (PSF), a multigrade sand filter (MGF), or a dual media
filter (DMF = sand + anthracite).
– Some systems include a treated-sewage storage tank
following tertiary treatment.
13
 STP DESCRIPTIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS

Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)—Process Overview

Process Description
SBRs are based on the activated-sludge treatment process. SBRs
use a batch approach in which secondary sewage treatment
occurs in a single tank. In the first stage of SBR treatment,
influent is added to the batch-reactor tank and aerated.
Following aeration, the wastewater is allowed to settle. Finally,
the treated wastewater is removed from the top of the tank using
a decanter valve, pump, or airlift tube. At smaller scales* in India,
SBR tanks were found to be constructed of reinforced concrete or
mild steel.

Source: CAMIX Co., Ltd (http://www.camix.com.vn/uploads/sbr_operating.jpg)

Advantages Disadvantages
• Allows for react, settle, and decant phases to occur within • Can face issues with high peak flows—unless already factored
the same tank into design
• Does not require secondary clarifiers or return-activated- • Requires higher skill level for maintenance, due to more
sludge (RAS) lines complex system setup (automation/instrumentation)
• Generally has lower capital costs than MBR-based systems • Generally offers a lower level of wastewater treatment than
MBR-based systems
• Is an automated process**
• Requires a relatively small footprint

*For the purposes of this report, “smaller scales” refer to systems with a capacity of </= ~100 KLD; **One vendor who supplied data for this task claimed to
14
offer a “labor free” system. However, most systems that were identified did appear to have labor costs associated with operation expenses.
 STP DESCRIPTIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS

SBR-based systems—most commonly observed

configuration at scale of </= ~100 KLD
PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY

Sodium
Equalization Sequencing
Bar Screen Hypochlorite Filtration
Tank Batch Reactor
Dosing

Sludge
Dewatering

Observed Variations in Configuration

• Primary Treatment • Tertiary Treatment
– This stage does not always appear to include an – Filtration typically includes an activated carbon filter
equalization (collection) tank. (ACF) and/or a pressure sand filter (PSF). One system in
the data set is reported to use a dual media filter (DMF),
– It may also include an oil and grease trap.
rather than an ACF.
• Secondary Treatment
– One system includes UV treatment.
– In some designs, the equalization tank also includes
– Sludge dewatering methods, when present, include filter
aeration which makes it part of the secondary-treatment
presses or sludge drying beds.
process.
– Some systems include a treated-sewage storage tank
– One system in the data set includes a tube settler
following tertiary treatment.
(clarifier), following the sequencing batch reactor.
15
 STP DESCRIPTIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)—Process Overview

Process Description
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) combine two treatments
processes: the activated-sludge process and membrane filtration.
Wastewater is first aerated in a bioreactor tank, where
microorganisms are present in the form of suspended flocks.
Then, a microporous membrane is used for solid/liquid
separation. This configuration eliminates the need for secondary
clarifiers. At smaller scales* in India, MBR tanks were found to be
constructed of mild steel. As such, civil costs (or costs associated
with constructing reinforced concrete structures—e.g., tanks,
foundations) are minimal. Note that MBRs can also be added to
existing MBBRs as retrofits.

Source: Lenntech B.V. (http://www.lenntech.com/images/mbr_submerged_scheme.jpg)

Advantages Disadvantages
• Generally offers higher level of wastewater treatment than • Typically has higher capital costs than MBBR- or SBR-based
MBBR- or SBR-based systems systems
• Does not require secondary clarifiers • Requires membrane replacement approximately every 3
years—according to one supplier, membrane replacement for
• Is an automated process** a 100-KLD plant will be about Rs. 1500000 to 2000000 (or
$22,500 - $30,000).
• Requires a relatively small footprint
• Requires higher skill level for maintenance, due to more
complex system setup (automation/instrumentation)

16 *For the purposes of this report, “smaller scales” refer to systems with a capacity of </= ~100 KLD; **One vendor who supplied data for this task claimed to offer
a “labor free” system. However, most systems that were identified did appear to have labor costs associated with operational expenses.
 STP DESCRIPTIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS

MBR-based systems—most commonly observed

configuration at scale of </= ~100 KLD
PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY

Sodium Treated
Membrane
Bar Screen Anoxic Tank Hypochlorite Sewage
Bioreactor
Dosing Storage Tank

Sludge
Dewatering

Observed Variations in Configuration

• Primary Treatment • Tertiary Treatment
– Systems sometimes include a collection tank prior to – One system in the data set is reported to use a dual media
screening. filter (DMF), in addition to a sodium-hypochlorite stage.
– This stage may also include an oil and grease separator (or – Two systems in the data set do not appear to include a
trap). sodium-hypochlorite stage.
• Secondary Treatment
– The anoxic tank is used for denitrification (note that
denitrification itself is sometimes referred to as a tertiary
treatment process).
– Only two systems in the data set are reported to include
sludge dewatering—filter presses are the method used.
17
 Task Design & Background

Overview of Data Set

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP Descriptions and Observed Configurations

Feature and Performance Comparison for 3 STP Types

Cost Comparison for 3 STP Types

Additional Market Observations

Examples of Each STP Type

 COMPARISON OF FEATURES/PERFORMANCE

Features and treatment specifications for STPs installations.

Reported Values
MBBR SBR MBR
Median Range Median Range Median Range
Features
Treatment Capacity (KLD) 62.5 10 - 120 35 10 - 135 50 10 - 90
Installation Year 2015 2008 - 2016 2015 2004 - 2016 2012 2007 - 2016
Anticipated System Lifetime (Years) 15 10 - 20 15 . 15 (3 for .
membrane)
Treatment Specifications*
BOD (mg/L) 30 10 - 30 10 10 - 30 10 5 - 20
COD (mg/L) 100 20 - 250 50 20 -150 50 50 - 100
TSS (mg/L) 20 0 - 100 10 3 - 50 20 2 - 50
* These values represent design specifications and have not necessarily been verified via sampling.

Findings
Features
• Treatment capacity—overall system capacities in data set are
lowest for SBR (median of 35 KLD), even though ranges are
similar for all three system types.
• Installation year—as a group, the MBR installations (median
of 2012) are older than MBBR or SBR installations (median of
2015).
• Anticipated system lifetime—at 15 years, the projected
lifetime is the same for all three systems; however, MBRs
require the replacement of membranes every 3 years, which
represents an added maintenance cost.
19
Treatment Specifications
• BOD Treatment—MBR has the best reported performance.
Although the median value for MBR and SBR are the same,
the overall range is lower for MBR.
• COD Treatment—MBR and SBR have the best reported
performances, based on median values.
• TSS Removal—SBR has the best reported performance,
based on median values, although the range is similar for
SBR and MBR.
• Note that insufficient data was available to provide values for
nutrient and pathogen removal.
 COMPARISON OF FEATURES/PERFORMANCE

Footprint of STP installations

Footprint as a function of total treatment capacity Footprint per KLD of treatment capacity
200 6

180

Installation Footprint (m2) per KLD Capacity

5
160
Installation Footprint (m2)

140
4
120

100 3

80
2
60

40
1
20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Treatment Capacity (KLD) Treatment Capacity (KLD)
Findings
• MBR had the largest system footprints, on average, of the three STP types.* MBBR and SBR system footprints were similar, with SBR
(on average) having slightly smaller footprints than MBBRs as capacity decreases.
• The following factors may impact STP footprint:
– The type of equipment used in a given STP system—e.g., the presence and size of collection tanks and treated sewage storage
tanks
– The presence/size of a greenbelt around the STP (and if that area is included in the overall footprint).

* Note that two MBR data points were removed from the data set for this analysis. These points came from the same supplier and appear to be either
20 incorrect or to have unusually small footprints. It is possible that the supplier did not include the square footage associated with a treated-sewage storage
tank, which can account for a significant proportion of total system footprint.
 COMPARISON OF FEATURES/PERFORMANCE

Sludge generation for STP installations

Sludge output as a function of total treatment capacity Sludge output per KLD of treatment capacity
2.5 0.06

Sludge Output (m3/day) per KLD Capacity

0.05
2
Sludge Output Volume (m3/day)

0.04
1.5

0.03

1
0.02

0.5
0.01

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Treatment Capacity (KLD) Treatment Capacity (KLD)
Findings
• SBR has the lowest reported sludge generation and MBR has the highest, on average.
• SBR and MBBR each have sludge outputs per unit of capacity that are relatively flat across the system-capacity range—i.e., these
values did not change significantly across varying treatment capacities.
• MBR, in contrast, has increasing sludge output per unit of capacity as system capacity decrease—i.e., these values become larger
as systems become smaller. However, this observation may be the result of inaccurate data and/or a relatively small data set.
• Note that the solids consistency of sludge ranges from 1.25% to 3% for all three STP types.
– SBR has a median reported value of 3%.
– MBBR and MBR each have median reported values of 1.5%.
21
 COMPARISON OF FEATURES/PERFORMANCE

Energy requirements for STP installations

Energy requirements as a function of total treatment capacity Energy requirements per KLD of treatment capacity
600 14

500 12

KWhr/Day per KLD Capacity

10
400
KWhr/Day

8
300
6
200
4

100
2

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Treatment Capacity (KLD) Treatment Capacity (KLD)

Findings
• In the above graphs, SBR installations are separated into two groups.
– SBR Group 1 represents installations in the data set from two suppliers that promote their systems as being energy efficient.
– SBR Group 2 represents the remaining SBRs in the data set (i.e., installations that were not specifically reported by suppliers as
being energy-efficient designs).
• MBR seems to have the largest energy requirements, although only slightly higher than MBBR and SBR Group 2.
• SBR Group 1 has the lowest reported energy requirements of installations in the data set. As previously mentioned, these systems
were promoted as being energy-efficient designs.*

22 *Note: four of six installations in SBR Group 2 were reported to use sludge-dewatering components. In contrast, none of the SBR Group 1 installations were
reported to incorporate dewatering. This difference could be another factor influencing differences in energy consumption between the two groups.
 Task Design & Background

Overview of Data Set

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP Descriptions and Observed Configurations

Feature and Performance Comparison for 3 STP Types

Cost Comparison for 3 STP Types

Additional Market Observations

Examples of Each STP Type

 COST COMPARISONS

Capital costs (CAPEX) defined, and average breakouts for

STP installations
MBBR
Capital Costs Defined
• CAPEX = Hardware Cost + Civil Cost. CAPEX Includes costs associated with design, supply,
installation, and commissioning.
• Hardware Cost = Costs of all system components excluding concrete structures. Hardware
33% Hardware system components may include steel tanks, pumps, screens, filters, blowers, treatment
67% Civil media or membranes, electrical, instrumentation (e.g., level indicators and switches, pressure
gauges, flow meters), and piping.
• Civil Cost = Costs associated with constructing reinforced cement concrete structures (RCCs).
Civil (or RCC) structures typically include tanks and foundations.
SBR
Findings – Hardware vs. Civil Costs
41% • MBBR and SBR
Hardware – Hardware accounts for the majority of total CAPEX.
Civil – The percentage of hardware versus civil costs, on average, is similar for MBBR and SBR,
59%
with MBBR having a slightly higher percentage than SBR for hardware.
– The largest proportion of civil costs seems to be associated with construction of concrete
MBR tanks for these systems.
• MBR
Hardware – These installations are reported to have little to no civil costs--tanks are constructed of
Civil mild steel, rather than concrete.
– However, civil costs are sometimes incurred from constructing foundations (or pads) for
100% MBR systems. In some cases, these costs may not be reflected in the cost breakouts
provided by STP suppliers.
Average hardware versus civil costs as a percentage
of total CAPEX for the three STP types in data set
24
 COST COMPARISONS

CAPEX comparison for STP installations with cost curves*

CAPEX cost-curve formulas based on data set.
4500
STP Type CAPEX (USD/KLD Capacity)
MBBR y = 7309.1x-0.648 (R² = 0.8137)
4000
SBR y = 3189.2x-0.401 (R² = 0.6995)
3500 MBR y = 11826x-0.502 (R² = 0.5279)
CAPEX (USD) per KLD of Treatment Capacity

3000 CAPEX examples for each STP type using costs curves.
STP Type Capacity CAPEX (USD) CAPEX
(KLD)** per KLD (USD) Total
2500
MBBR 20 $1,049 $20,981
SBR 20 $959 $19,187
2000
MBR 20 $2,629 $52,572
1500 **20KLD, or 20 m3/day, corresponds to a population equivalent of 100.

Findings
1000 • All three STP types appear to have similarly shaped
CAPEX cost curves.
500 • MBR has the highest CAPEX across capacities. More
variation was observed in CAPEX for MBR installations
than for MBBR or SBR. This variation may be due to
0
pricing differences between MBR suppliers.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Treatment Capacity (KLD) • MBBR and SBR have similar CAPEX across treatment
capacities.
*Notes on cost-curve calculations are provided in the supplemental slide.
25
 COST COMPARISONS

Operations cost defined, and average breakouts for STP

installations
MBBR
4% Operations Costs Defined
Chemical • Operations Cost = Chemical Cost + Energy Cost + Labor Cost.
41% Consumption
• Chemical Cost = Cost associated with the sodium-hypochlorite (chlorine bleach) treatment
Energy
Consumption
stage.
55% Labor
• Energy Cost = Cost associated with operation of electromechanical components including
pumps, blowers, and instrumentation.
• Labor Cost = Cost associated with operating the STP, including starting/stopping pumps
SBR and lab analysis.* Twenty-four hour monitoring is required for fully manual systems.
5% • Operations costs do not include maintenance costs (Operations Costs + Maintenance Cost
40% Chemical = OPEX). Data on maintenance costs were requested during this task; however, no
Consumption
information was received for the systems in the data set. Maintenance costs may include
Energy in-house maintenance of pumps, blowers, microprocessor controllers, and/or
Consumption compressors, as well as replacement costs for filters (when applicable) or membranes (in
55% Labor the case of MBRs).

Findings—Chemical vs. Energy vs. Labor Costs

• The average operations-cost breakout is similar for all three STP types, although the
MBR percentage for labor is slightly higher for MBR than for MBBR or SBR.
3% • Energy costs account for more than half of total operations costs for all three STP types.
Chemical
• Labor costs represent the second largest proportion of operations costs.
Consumption
46%
Energy
• Chemical costs represent the smallest proportion, at less than 5%, for each STP type.
51%
Consumption • One SBR supplier and one MBR supplier reported that their systems are “labor free” (fully
Labor automated)—note that these systems were not included in the cost breakout calculations,
because they represent outliers.

Average operations cost breakouts for the *Operators do not typically handle sludge removal—unskilled labor is often used for this task. Sludge-removal
26 three STP types in data set costs are not represented in overall labor costs, but should be relatively low.
 COST COMPARISONS

Operations cost comparisons for STP installations,

including breakout for energy-efficient SBRs*
70 Operations cost-curve formulas based on data set.
STP Type Operations Cost (USD/KLD Capacity)
MBBR y = 118.36x-0.442 (R² = 0.5352)
Operations Cost (USD) per Month per KLD of Capacity

60
SBR Group 1 y = 146.81x-0.741 (R² = 0.964)

50
SBR Group 2 y = 237.75x-0.596 (R² = 0.9229)
MBR y = 625.54x-0.773 (R² = 0.8815)
Operations cost examples for each STP type using costs curves.
40
Capacity Operations (USD) Operations (USD)
STP Type
(KLD)** per KLD per Month Total per Month
30 MBBR 20 $31 $630
SBR Group 1 20 $16 $319
20 SBR Group 2 20 $40 $798
MBR 20 $62 $1,235
10 Findings
• Operations costs are highest, on average, for MBRs and lowest
for energy-efficient SBRs (SBR Group 1). Costs are similar for
0 SBRs not specifically reported by suppliers as being energy-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 efficient designs (SBR Group 2) and MBBRs.
Treatment Capacity (KLD) • For all system types, it seems likely that there are scaling effects
*SBR Group 1 represents installations in the data set from two suppliers that promote their resulting from both energy and labor costs (i.e., as systems get
systems as being energy efficient. SBR Group 2 represents the remaining SBRs in the data smaller in capacity, per-unit costs for energy and labor get
set. Also note that one SBR supplier and one MBR supplier reported that their systems are larger).
“labor free” (fully automated)—these systems were not included in the above operations
cost curves, because they appear to represent outliers. • In contrast, per-unit chemical costs should remain relatively flat
27 over different treatment capacities for all system types.
**20KLD, or 20 m3/day, corresponds to a population equivalent of 100.
 COST COMPARISONS

Operations cost breakouts for MBBR, SBR, and MBR

installations—chemical vs. energy vs. labor costs
MBBR operations cost breakouts SBR operations cost breakouts*
40 40
Operations Cost (USD) per Month

Operations Cost (USD) per Month

35 35
30 30
per KLD of Capacity

per KLD of Capacity

25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Treatment Capacity (KLD) Treatment Capacity (KLD)
MBR operations cost breakouts Findings
40
• Labor costs for all three system types appear to strongly impact total
Operations Cost (USD) per Month

35 operations cost as capacity decreases.

30 • Energy costs also seem to impact total operations cost as capacity
per KLD of Capacity

25 decreases. This impact appears to be greatest for SBRs in Group 2

20
(i.e., SBRs that were not specifically reported by suppliers as being
energy-efficient designs).
15
• Chemical costs per unit of capacity for all three system types seem to
10
increase only slightly as capacity decreases. One would not expect
5 significant scaling effects related to chemical additions (e.g., the same
0 relative amount of chlorine bleach would be added to wastewater
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 regardless of system capacity).
Treatment Capacity (KLD)
28 *SBR Group 1 represents installations in the data set from two suppliers that promote their systems as being energy efficient. SBR Group 2 represents the remaining SBRs in the data set.
 Task Design & Background

Overview of Data Set

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP Descriptions and Observed Configurations

Feature and Performance Comparison for 3 STP Types

Cost Comparison for 3 STP Types

Additional Market Observations

Examples of Each STP Type

 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Additional market observations gained from interviews.

• Treated sewage from STPs identified during this study is typically used either for gardening or for toilet
flushing.
• Currently, there is very little monitoring of STP performance by regulatory authorities for residential and
commercial complexes—laws are often in place, but they are not always enforced. Thus, for residential
and commercial end users, the only selection criteria for STP is cost.
• It is difficult for MBR to compete in the residential/commercial sector with technologies like MBBR or SBR
because:
– Flow is too small to justify costs at this scale.
– Automation/instrumentation adds to cost and operating difficulty.
– MBBR and SBR are able to achieve required standards, in most cases. For example, if a customer is
using effluent for flush water, then he/she does not need a treatment system that reduces BOD to less
than 2 (i.e., he/she does not need an MBR).
• Industrial end users typically have separate wastewater treatment systems to process effluent (effluent
treatment plants [ETPs]) and to process sewage (STPs).
• As part of the monitoring/inspection process for industry, authorities typically inspect both ETP and STP
systems at a given facility. As a result of this increased regulatory oversight, STPs at industrial facilities
tend to be better performing systems than in other end-use environments.

30
 Task Design & Background

Overview of Data Set

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STP Descriptions and Observed Configurations

Feature and Performance Comparison for 3 STP Types

Cost Comparison for 3 STP Types

Additional Market Observations

Examples of Each STP Type

 STP EXAMPLES

MBBR example—50 KLD-capacity system in Madurai,

Tamil Nadu*
Feature Description Feature Description
Type of End User Commercial System Hardware Bar screen, Equalization tank, Denitrification tank,
Served Components MBBR reactor, Clarifier, Sodium hypochlorite dosing,
Dual media filter (DMF--sand + anthracite), Activated
carbon filter (ACF), Ultrafiltration, Basket centrifuge
System Location Madurai, Tamil Nadu
CAPEX (design, $44,850 (Rs. 2450000)
supply, installation,
commissioning)
Installation Year 2015
CAPEX Breakdown $37,375 (Rs. 2450000) for Hardware + $7,475
(Rs. 490000) for Civil

Primary treatment (screen/equalization tank, pumps):

Anticipated System 10 years $5,797 (Rs. 380000), Secondary treatment (MBBR,
Lifetime blowers): $25,323 (Rs. 1660000), Tertiary treatment
(DMF, ACF): $3,814 (Rs. 250000) + $9,916 (Rs.
Treatment Capacity 50 KLD 650000) for UF
Treatment Levels BOD: 10 mg/L, COD: 20 mg/L, TSS: Nil, Operations Cost Total:$2,161 (Rs. 144000)
MPN: E-Coli log 6 removal (Monthly)
System Output: 30 KLD Chemical consumption: $113 (Rs. 7500), Energy
Effluent Volume consumption: $698 (Rs. 46500), Labor cost: $1,350
3 (Rs. 90000)
System Output: 1.1 m /day
Sludge Volume Energy Requirements 250 KWh per day
2
Footprint of System 123 m
(Area) Additional All tanks including MBBR are civil structures.
Information

* Additional data on this system (and others) is available to RT partners in spreadsheet format upon
32 request from STeP.
 STP EXAMPLES

SBR example—55 KLD-capacity system in Bengaluru,

Karnataka*
Feature Description Feature Description
Type of End User Educational Institute System Hardware Bar screen, Equalization tank, SBR reactor (with
Served Components decanting valve), Sodium Hypochlorite dosing,
Pressure sand filter, Activated carbon filter, Filter
press
System Location Bengaluru, Karnataka
CAPEX (design, supply, $28,500 (Rs. 1900000)
installation,
Installation Year 2016 commissioning)

CAPEX Breakdown $19,500 (Rs. 1300000) for Hardware + $9,000

(Rs. 600000) for Civil
Anticipated System 15 years
Lifetime
Operations Cost Total: $1,225 (Rs. 81650)
Treatment Capacity 55 KLD (Monthly)
Chemical consumption: $25 (Rs. 1650), Energy
Treatment Levels BOD: <10 mg/L, COD: <100 mg/L, TSS: <10 consumption: $900 (Rs. 60000), Labor: $300 (Rs.
mg/L, MPN: < 100/ml 20000)
System Output: 54 KLD
Effluent Volume Energy Requirements 350 KWh per day
3
System Output: 0.25-0.3 m with 1% consistency
Sludge Volume
2 Additional Information .
Footprint of System 89 m
(Area)

* Additional data on this system (and others) is available to RT partners in spreadsheet format upon
33 request from STeP.
 STP EXAMPLES

MBR example—25 KLD-capacity system in Karnataka*

Feature Description Feature Description
Type of End User Industrial System Hardware Screen, Anoxic tank, MBR, Hypochlorite dosing,
Served Components Chlorination tank, Treated sewage storage tank

System Location Karnataka CAPEX (design, supply, $59,337 (Rs. 3800000)

installation,
commissioning)
Installation Year 2014
CAPEX Breakdown $59,337 (Rs. 3800000) for Hardware + 0 for Civil**

Primary Treatment (screen and oil separator):

$3,123 (Rs.200000), Secondary Treatment (anoxic
Anticipated System 3 years for membrane, 15 years for rest of tank, MBR, blowers): $52,310 (Rs. 3350000),
Lifetime STP Tertiary Treatment (Chlorination, Treated water
storage tank): $3,904 (Rs. 250000)
Treatment Capacity 25 KLD
Operations Cost Total: $1,170 (Rs. 78000)
Treatment Levels BOD: <10 mg/L, COD: <50 mg/L, TSS: 50 (Monthly)
mg/L Chemical consumption: $45 (Rs. 3000), Energy
System Output: 23 KLD consumption: $375 (Rs. 25000), Labor cost: $750
Effluent Volume (Rs. 50000)
System Output: <0.5 m /day
3 Energy Requirements 120 KWh per day
Sludge Volume
2
Footprint of System 48 m Additional Information MBR is a mild steel fabricated structure.
(Area)

* Additional data on this system (and others) is available to RT partners in spreadsheet format upon
request from STeP.
34 ** MBR installations are reported to have little to no civil costs--tanks are constructed of mild steel, rather
than concrete. However, civil costs are sometimes incurred from constructing foundations (or pads).
 SUPPLEMENTAL

Notes on CAPEX cost-curve calculations

• CAPEX includes both hardware costs and civil costs (when applicable).
• Data excludes MBBR and SBR installations that were reported to include treated-sewage storage tanks—
these tanks do not appear to be standard in the configuration of MBBR and SBR systems and seem to add
significantly to CAPEX.
• CAPEX values for each installation were adjusted to 2016 Rupees (to take into account for inflation).
Adjustments were made using the Indian Producer Price Index for Chemical Plant Equipment.
• The exchange rate used was 0.015 Rupees to 1 USD.
• “Noise” in CAPEX (and operations cost) data may be related several factors, including the following:
– Variations in system configurations for the same STP type (i.e., different components and/or
subsystems are sometimes used for the same system type)
– Variations in supplier pricing
– Incomplete/inaccurate reporting of costs

35