Complete Report PDF

Urban Sector Policy & Management Unit 2010
Provided that all reproductions are adequately cited and referenced, this publication as a whole or any
part may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, without the prior permission of Urban Sector Policy & Management Unit.
The views expressed in this report are those of the consultants, unless specifically attributed to others,
and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Urban Sector Policy & Management Unit or the
Government of Punjab. The Urban Sector Policy & Management Unit does not guarantee the accuracy of
the data in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequences of its use.
ISBN 000-000-0000-00-0
Published by:
The Urban Sector Policy & Management Unit, P&D Department, Govt. of Punjab-Pakistan, August 2010
4-B, Lytton Road, Lahore.
Tel: +92-(0)42-99213579-83; Fax:+92-(0)42-99213585
E-mail: uspmu@punjab.gov.pk, uspmunit@gmail.com
Website: www.urbanunit.gov.pk
Consultant:
Printed by:
ii
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................
PART 1 - EXISTING SITUATION .............................................................................. vii
Sanitation and wastewater collection .................................................................................................. vii
Wastewater treatment ......................................................................................................................... vii
Environmental impacts ......................................................................................................................... vii
Health impacts ..................................................................................................................................... viii
PART 2 – WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND OPTIONS ....... viii
Objectives of treatment ....................................................................................................................... viii
Level of treatment required................................................................................................................. viii
Wastewater treatment processes ......................................................................................................... ix
Stages in sewage treatment................................................................................................................... ix
Preliminary treatment processes........................................................................................................... ix
Primary treatment processes.................................................................................................................. x
Anaerobic processes .............................................................................................................................. x
Sedimentation tanks .............................................................................................................................. xi
Chemically enhanced processes ............................................................................................................ xi
‘Extensive’ secondary treatment processes .......................................................................................... xi
‘Intensive’ aerobic secondary treatment processes ............................................................................. xii
Trickling filters....................................................................................................................................... xii
Activated sludge.................................................................................................................................... xii
Moving bed biological reactors............................................................................................................ xiii
Aerated lagoons ................................................................................................................................... xiii
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) ........................................................................................................... xiv
Disinfection .......................................................................................................................................... xiv
PART 3 - MODELS ...................................................................................................xiv
Villages .............................................................................................................................................. xv
Small and medium‐sized towns ............................................................................................................ xv
Large towns and cities ......................................................................................................................... xvi
PART 4 – STRATEGY OPTIONS ..........................................................................xviii
Demand ............................................................................................................................................ xviii
Objectives and focus areas .................................................................................................................xviii
Developing the information base .......................................................................................................xviii
Developing and strengthening institutions.........................................................................................xviii
Next steps ............................................................................................................................................. xix
iii
PART 1 - EXISTING SITUATION ................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
2.Existing drainage facilities..................................................................................... 1
2.1 Villages .................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Smaller towns.......................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Larger towns and cities ........................................................................................................... 3
3.Existing treatment facilities ................................................................................... 4
3.1 Wastewater treatment in Punjab ........................................................................................... 4
3.2 Wastewater treatment elsewhere in Pakistan ....................................................................... 5
3.3 Industrial treatment................................................................................................................ 5
3.4 Proposed and ongoing wastewater treatment initiatives ...................................................... 6
4.Present wastewater reuse practices ..................................................................... 6
5.Environmental and health impacts ....................................................................... 7
PART 2 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND OPTIONS ......... 10
1.Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Objectives of treatment ........................................................................................................10
1.2 Level of treatment required..................................................................................................11
1.3 Wastewater treatment processes ........................................................................................11
1.4 Stages in sewage treatment..................................................................................................12
2.Preliminary treatment processes ........................................................................ 13
2.1 Screening...............................................................................................................................13
2.2 Grit removal ..........................................................................................................................15
2.3 Flow equalisation ..................................................................................................................17
3.Primary treatment processes............................................................................... 18
3.1 Septic tanks ...........................................................................................................................18
3.2 Anaerobic waste stabilisation ponds ....................................................................................18
3.3 ‘Enhanced’ primary treatment..............................................................................................19
3.3.1 Small‐scale options .......................................................................................................19
3.3.2 Upward flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors ..........................................................20
3.3.3 Sedimentation tanks .............................................................................................................23
3.3.4 Chemically enhanced primary treatment .............................................................................24
4.‘Extensive’ secondary treatment processes ...................................................... 26
4.1 Waste stabilisation ponds.....................................................................................................26
4.2 Constructed wetlands ...........................................................................................................27
4.3 ‘Intensive’ aerobic secondary treatment processes .............................................................28
4.3.1 Trickling filters...............................................................................................................28
4.3.2 Intermediate and high rate trickling filters ...................................................................29
4.3.3 Biological aerated filter (BAF) .......................................................................................30
4.3.4 Rotating biological contactors ......................................................................................30
4.3.5 Activated sludge............................................................................................................31
iv
4.3.6 Extended aeration.........................................................................................................32
4.3.7 Sequenced batch reactors ............................................................................................33
4.3.8 Fluidized bed reactors (Moving bed biological reactors)..............................................34
4.3.9 Aerated lagoons ............................................................................................................34
4.3.10 Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) ....................................................................................35
5.Disinfection............................................................................................................ 36
6.Cost comparisons ................................................................................................. 37
6.1 Overall costs..........................................................................................................................37
6.2 Operational costs ..................................................................................................................38
PART 3 – WASTEWATER TREATMENT MO DELS ................................................ 39
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 39
2 Villages ................................................................................................................... 39
3 Small and medium-sized towns........................................................................... 42
3.1 General principles .................................................................................................................42
3.2 ‘Extensive’ treatment, the preferred option ........................................................................42
3.3. Options when land availability is limited ..............................................................................43
3.3.1 Anaerobic ponds followed by polishing ponds .............................................................44
3.3.2 Anaerobic ponds followed by aerated lagoons ............................................................44
3.4 Pathogen removal .................................................................................................................45
4 Large towns and cities ......................................................................................... 46
4.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................46
4.2 Guiding principles for the intensive treatment model .........................................................46
4.3 Primary treatment options ...................................................................................................47
4.4 Secondary treatment options ...............................................................................................47
4.5 Disinfection options ..............................................................................................................48
4.6 Recommendations ................................................................................................................48
PART 4 – STRATEGY OPTIONS .............................................................................. 51
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 51
2 Requirements for an effective strategy .............................................................. 51
2.1 Objectives..............................................................................................................................52
2.2 Demand for improved wastewater management ................................................................52
2.3 Resources ..............................................................................................................................52
2.4 Relative impacts on different locations ................................................................................52
2.5 Existing sewerage and drainage arrangements ....................................................................53
3 Proposed strategy................................................................................................. 53
3.1 Where the initial focus should be .........................................................................................54
3.2 Developing the information base .........................................................................................54
3.3 Pilot and demonstration initiatives.......................................................................................55
3.4 Appropriate management arrangements .............................................................................56
4 Next steps .............................................................................................................. 58
v
ANNEX 1 – FURTHER INFORMATION ON EXISTING TREATMENT .................... 59
General .............................................................................................................................................. 59
Hayatabad, Peshawar ...........................................................................................................................59
Islamabad.............................................................................................................................................. 59
Faisalabad ............................................................................................................................................. 60
Karachi .............................................................................................................................................. 62
Hyderabad............................................................................................................................................. 62
General findings of Balfour Maunsell report ........................................................................................62
ANNEX 2 – COMPARISON OF SEWAGE TREATMENT OPTIONS....................... 64
ANNEX 3 – LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES....................................................................................................... 65
Basic assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 65
Preliminary treatment ..........................................................................................................................65
Waste stabilisation ponds.....................................................................................................................66
Upward flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor ...................................................................................67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Wastewater pumping station in Tandlianwala, Faisalabad District ........................... 3
Figure 2 – Septic tanks connected to unlined open drain in Faisalabad................................. 4
Figure 3 Wastewater treatment stages and processes......................................................... 12
Figure 4 - Baffled reactor typical layout ................................................................................ 20
Figure 5 - UASB layout as used in Indian reactors ............................................................... 20
Figure 6 Hopper bottomed sedimentation tank..................................................................... 23
Figure 7 Radial flow sedimentation tank ............................................................................... 24
Figure 8 Village Drainage .................................................................................................... 40
Figure 9 - Village Drainage Diagrammatic representation of improved situation .................. 40
Figure 10 Satellite image of Chak 128 village, Jaranwala Tehsil......................................... 41
Figure 11 - Ideal model treatment system for small towns ................................................... 43
Figure 12 - System using 'polishing' ponds to reduce land requirement............................... 44
Figure 13 - System with aerated lagoons to reduce land requirement.................................. 45
Figure 14 General arrangement UASB followed by trickling filters ...................................... 50
Figure 15 General Arrangement - UASBS followed by submerged aerated filters .............. 50
Figure 16 Anaerobic ponds followed by facultative aerated lagoons .................................... 50
Figure 17 General Arrangement UASB followed by activated sludge .................................. 50
vi
FOREWORD
The growing paucity of water all over the world along with population increase in
urban areas raises concern about appropriate water management practices. The
attention and interest on sewage treatment facilities was insignificant in the past.
However, the trends in urban development has proved that the wastewater
treatment deserve greater emphasis in order to create health environment for the
inhabitants.
Proper treatment of the wastewater generated in all the major cities of Punjab is
one of the big environmental issues that has been primarily neglected so far and
need to be addressed on top priority. In order to ensure the sustainable urban
water management in cities of Punjab, collection of the waste water from all
residential, industrial and commercial sources is highly important and it requires
proper treatment and disposal in an eco-friendly way.
In this context, the report on Safe Disposal of “Waste Water – Model for Punjab”
is likely to be useful and progressive for devising the options of waste water
treatment which are feasible and most suitable with respect to local circumstances.
Mr. Kevin Tayler was hire d as a consultant to prepare this report by the
Government of Punjab in 2008. The report describes the objectives and
components of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), along with preliminary,
primary, secondary and extensive treatment processes and options. It also explains
about the factors affecting technology choice and suggests various models for
wastewater treatment in Punjab
Over all the report highlights a wide range of waste water related issues, problems,
and challenges from a future-oriented, multi sectoral perspective in general about
Pakistan and in particular about Punjab. It provides a practical way forward for
achieving the goal of efficient treatment of all the waste water generated in
Punjab.
vii
PREFACE
This report sets out the findings of an investigation into the options for safe wastewater disposal in
Punjab Province. The main focus of the work is on the role of treatment in reducing the organic
loadings and pathogen concentrations to within the limits required to protect the environment and
public health respectively. The investigation drew on available secondary sources and meaning full
discussion with all the relevant Departments of Government of Punjab and it was funded by the
Punjab Devolved Social Services Programme (PDSSP).
During the preparation of this report the existing situation regarding waste water treatment in
Punjab, available approaches and technologies were explored. The results of these investigations
were used to underpin proposals for wastewater treatment models suitable for (a) villages, (b) small
to medium sized towns and (c) large towns and cities. Recommendations recognise the need to take
account of operational conditions, including factors such as the availability or otherwise of land and
a reliable source of power. The minimum-cost syst em is not necessarily that which has the lowest
capital cost and plan.
The last part of the report suggests a strategy for moving for the present unsatisfactory situation to
the desired objective of ensuring that all wastewater generated in Punjab is adequately treated to the
level required for safe reuse in irrigation or disposal to the environment. This recognises the need to
generate demand for improved wastewater management among both officials and the general
public. A targeted approach to the provision of wastewater treatment facilities is proposed, linked
to the current state of rivers and other water courses.
While this report has been written by a consultant, it would not have been possible without the
considerable efforts of PDSSP, the Urban Unit, Planning and Development Department,
Government of Punjab and the valuable inputs received from WASA staff, PHED officials,
university lecturers and others in the course of the investigation. From this point of view, the report
is very much a collaborative effort.
Finally, it is worth noting that the report represents work in progress. It does not claim to provide
the last word on the subject of wastewater treatment in Punjab. Rather, it should be seen as a step
on the way, to be used and built upon by all those who seek to bring about improved water quality
and better public health in the Province.
KEVIN TAYLER
viii
ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank
AIT Asian Institute of Technology Bangkok
APT Advanced primary treatment
BAF Biological aerated filter
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5 Five day biochemical oxygen demand
CEPT Chemically enhanced primary treatment
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CPCB Central Pollution Control Board (India)
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
IWMI International Water Management Institute
KWSB Karachi Water and Sewerage Board
MBBR Moving bed biological reactor
MBR Membrane bioreactor
MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids
NGO Non-government organisation
O2 Oxygen
PHED Public Health Engineering Department
PCRWR Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources
PLGO Punjab Local Government Ordinance
RBC Rotating biological contactor
REIP Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project
SBR Sequencing batch reactor
SCARP Salinity Control and Reclamation Project
SS Suspended solids
TSS Total suspended solids
TMA Tehsil Municipal Administration
UASB Upward flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
UC Union Council
UK United Kingdom
US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UV Ultraviolet
WASA Water and Sanitation Agency
WC Water closet
WHO World Health Organisation
WSP Waste stabilisation pond
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
YAP Yamuna Action Plan
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This report sets out the findings of an investigation into wastewater treatment models and
strategies for Punjab Province, Pakistan. It is divided into four parts covering (a) the existing
situation (b) treatment technologies and options (c) preferred models for villages, smaller
towns and large towns and cities and (d) a strategy for moving towards overall objectives
which can be summarised as follows:
• That wastewater treatment and reuse practices ensure that wastewater used for
irrigation is not injurious to the health of workers and consumers of irrigated crops.
• That wastewater is treated sufficiently to prevent severe oxygen deficiencies in receiving
waters.
The key findings of each part of the report are now summarised in turn.
PART 1 - EXISTING SITUATION

Sanitation and wastewater collection
The majority of households in Punjab have water-borne sanitation and produce wastewater
that had to be disposed of beyond the property boundary. Some toilets, mainly in larger
towns and cities, are connected to sewers but most households in peri-urban areas, smaller
towns and villages discharge wastewater to open drains, with WC wastes routed via fairly
crude individual household septic tanks. Because toilets are connected to drains and
sewers, wastewater characteristics are essentially those of sewage rather than sullage. A
significant proportion of this wastewater is used to irrigate crops, either directly or after being
pumped out of the agricultural drains to which it is discharged. The remainder is ultimately
discharged to the rivers that traverse the province.
Wastewater treatment
Very little wastewater is treated at present. Islamabad has four diffused-air activated sludge
plants while around 20% of Faisalabad’s wastewater is treated in a waste stabilisation pond
system. Some of the tannery waste from Kasur is also treated. Otherwise, there are
currently no operational municipal wastewater treatment plants in Punjab. There are
proposals to provide new waste stabilisation ponds to treat Rawalpindi’s waste water under
the ADB-funded Rawalpindi Environmental Improvement Project (REIP). Several smaller
towns will be provided with treatment facilities under the ADB-funded Southern Punjab Basic
Urban Services Project and the World Bank-funded Punjab Municipal Services Improvement
Project.
Environmental impacts
The lack of treatment facilities has significant consequences for both the environment and
for health. Environmental impacts have be en documented by the Pakistan Council of
Research in Water Resources (PCRWR). PC RWR reports that dissolved oxygen levels
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab x
P & D Department, Punjab
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(DO) in the Indus and Jhelum rivers are generally good. DO levels in some stretches of the
Chenab river are completely depleted while the Ravi downstream of Lahore is the most
polluted major river in Punjab with DO levels severely depleted over a considerable length of
the river. It is safe to assume that it will be better than that in the Ravi but worse than that in
the Jhelum. Smaller seasonal rivers such as the Soan are likely to be severely polluted
downstream of large towns and cities. Ap propriate wastewater treatment, designed to
reduce the organic load of treated effluent, must be a central feature of any strategy to
improve the condition of Punjab’s polluted rivers.
Health impacts
Studies carried out by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) suggest that
around 26% of all vegetable production in Pakistan relies on irrigation with wastewater,
almost all of which is untreated. An IWMI survey carried out in twelve towns and cities in
Southern Punjab found that wastewater was being used for irrigation around every town and
city. Other IWMI studies show significantly higher prevalence of hookworm and roundworm
(ascaris lumbricoides) infection in workers on land irrigated with wastewater, as compared
with workers on land irrigated with well or canal water. Little information is available
regarding health impacts on consumers of vegetables irrigated with wastewater. However,
IWMI found fairly high concentrations of helminth eggs (0.7 eggs/gm) on vegetables
collected from agricultural fields. Helminth egg concentrations on vegetables collected from
the market were even higher, averaging 2.1 eggs/gm. This suggests that unhygienic post
harvest handling is the major cause of contamination of vegetables sold in markets. In such
circumstances, appropriate wastewater treatment is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for ensuring that vegetables sold to consumers are free of harmful pathogens.
PART 2 – WASTEWATER TREA TMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND

OPTIONS
Objectives of treatment
Wastewater treatment may be designed to remove suspended solids and organic material,
which would otherwise harm the environment, remove pathogens, which might otherwise infect
people who come into contact with wastewater, or both. Most ‘conventional’ sewage treatment
systems are concerned with the first and are less successful in removing pathogens. As a
general rule, wastewater treatment technologies with a long retention time, in particular waste
stabilisation ponds and constructed wetlands, achieve the best pathogen removal results.
When wastewater is treated, it may provide useful resources. For instance, digested
sewage sludge may be used as a soil conditioner while treated wastewater may be used to
irrigate crops. This may provide a financial incentive for treatment. However, a fairly high
degree of treatment is required to reduce pathogen counts to levels that can ‘officially’ be
considered safe.
Level of treatment required
Key Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for discharge to inland
waters as stated in S.R.O. 549 (I)/2000 are as follows:
xi Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab THE URBAN UNIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand at 20oC (BOD5) 80mg/l
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 150mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 200mg/l
Ammonia (NH
40mg/l
3)
The Statutory Notification does not set bacterial standards and so appears to be mainly
concerned with protecting the environment. However, the WHO itself sets stringent
standards for wastewater that is reused to irrigate crops. Achieving these standards
irrigation is only possible with fairly long-term retention in an ‘extensive’ sewage treatment
process such as facultative and maturation waste stabilisation ponds. Limited land
availability and high land prices mean that it will be difficult to achieve the required retention
for most if not all towns and cities in Pakistan.
Wastewater treatment processes
Almost all wastewater treatment technologies are based on processes that occur in the
natural environment. These include physical pr ocesses, including screening, grit removal
and sedimentation and biological processes. The latter can be subdivided into two
categories, aerobic processes that use bacteria and other organisms that take oxygen from
their surroundings and anaerobic processes that use oxygen from the materials upon
which they are feeding. Most sewage treatment processes combine physical and biological
processes. For instance, a septic tank is designed to settle out suspended solids but once
settled, the solids are subject to anaerobic digestion, a biological process.
Stages in sewage treatment
Wastewater treatment normally involves the following:
1. Preliminary treatment – almost entirely physical in nature and intended to either

remove unwanted items from the wastewater flow or cut them up to a size that can be
handled by the sewage treatment process.
2. Primary treatment – predominantly physical in the form of sedimentation but including

some biological processes.
3. Secondary treatment – predominantly biological in nature but often requiring

subsequent physical settlement of solids resulting from biological processes.
Where there is a need for a very high standard of effluent, secondary treatment may be
followed by tertiary or ‘polishing’ treatment, which is also mainly biological in nature.
Preliminary treatment processes
Preliminary treatment processes normally include screening/maceration, flow balancing and

grit removal.
Screening is provided to remove rags and floating solids from the sewage flow. Coarse
screens with openings in the range 25 – 50mm should be provided on all WWTPs.
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Manually-raked screens may be appropriate for smaller plants but mechanically raked
screens will be required for larger flows. Good maintenance will be required to ensure that
mechanically raked screens do not fail. Wo rldwide, there has been an increased move
towards the use of fine screens with openings 2mm across or less. Further investigation is
required to establish whether they are suitable for conditions in Punjab.
Grit removal is required to protect moving mechanical equipment from abrasion and prevent
formation of heavy deposits in pipelines, channels and treatment units. Grit removal options,
which can be omitted before waste stabilisation ponds, include parabolic grit channels,
horizontal flow grit chambers, aerated grit chambers and vortex flow chambers. Simple
parabolic grit channels are appropriate for small works while rectangular horizontal flow
chambers and perhaps vortex flow chambers may be the best options for larger works. As
with screens, attention to maintenance will be required if grit removal facilities are to function
effectively. Storage with controlled release may be required prior to primary treatment to
allow flow equalisation, in particular reductions in peak flows. Ideally, storage equivalent to
between 10% and 40% of the 24 hour inflow should be provided, with the percentage
storage decreasing as plant size increases.
Primary treatment processes
Primary treatment options range from simple septic tanks through primary settling tanks to
‘enhanced’ systems including upward flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors (UASBs) and
chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT). Some enhanced processes may just meet
EPA discharge standards but primary treatment will normally have to be followed by
secondary treatment, particularly where protecting health and the environment mean that
higher effluent standards are required.
Anaerobic processes
Small-scale anaerobic primary treatment processes include septic tanks, baffled reactors
and upward flow anaerobic filters. All use a combination of physical settling and anaerobic
digestion and require periodic desludging, typically at intervals of 3 – 5 years. Organic load
removal is likely to vary from 30 – 50% for septic tanks up to 60 – 80% for baffled reactors
and anaerobic filters, depending on temperature and whether or not tanks are reactors are
regularly desludged.
Anaerobic primary treatment options for larger flows include anaerobic ponds, and upward
flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. The former are the simpler and cheaper
technology but require up to five times the area required by a UASB and must be located at
least 500 metres from houses as they give off gases that smell. UASBs should in theory be
able to achieve up to 80% reduction in organic loading. Poor performance of plants in India,
with only around 50% BOD reduction and 7% suspended solids reduction, appears to be
mainly attributable to a failure to record the sludge profile in the UASBs and periodically
remove excess sludge. The performance of anaerobic ponds is also dependent on regular
desludging, typically at intervals of 3 – 5 years.
All anaerobic primary treatment require an extended start-up period and so do not produce a
good standard of effluent immediately. They operate best at high loadings and this may help
xiii Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab THE URBAN UNIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
to explain the relatively poor performance of UASBs in India, where the BOD5 of untreated
municipal wastewater rarely exceeds 200mg/l.
Sedimentation tanks
Conventional treatment processes rely on sedimentation tanks to remove solids. These rely
almost entirely on physical settlement processes. Designs range from simple upward flow
hopper bottomed tanks, which have no moving parts but are only suitable for use on a small
through circular clarifiers, the most common type of tank, to rectangular tanks, normally used
only for large works. Clarifiers rely on a scraper mechanism supported by a rotating bridge
to move sludge to a sludge sump at the centre of the tank while rectangular tanks require a
rather more complex mechanism, which is hence more prone to breakdown.
The capacity of a sedimentation tank can be increased by installing tube or plate settlers
within the tank. These work by providing an increased settlement area while greatly
reducing the distance that suspended solids have to fall before reaching a hard surface.
Research suggests that such interventions have limited benefits at normal flows but can
greatly increase performance under peak flow conditions and can reduce vulnerability to
overloading.
Chemically enhanced processes

The capacity of sedimentation tanks can be increased by adding metal salts to the raw water
in order to induce coagulation of suspended solids. When salts are added prior to a
conventional sedimentation tank, the process is known as chemically enhanced primary
treatment (CEPT) while coagulation preceding a tank fitted with plate or tube settlers is
known as Advanced Primary Treatment (APT). Some research indicates that CEPT and
APT are better than conventional sedimentation processes at removing pathogens, including
helminth eggs, from the wastewater flow. This has obvious advantages where wastewater is
likely to be used for irrigation. To date, experience with CEPT and APT in situations similar
to those found in Punjab is limited but, given their potential to reduce pathogen levels, further
research into the potential uses of these processes should be encouraged.
‘Extensive’ secondary treatment processes
The term ‘extensive’ may be used to describe treatment options, including constructed
wetlands and waste stabilisation ponds, rely on ‘natural’ treatment processes. They do not
require energy but require much more land than other treatment options. They are better
than other sewage treatment options at removing pathogens.
Extensive waste stabilisation ponds normally include facultative ponds, which are typically
1.5 -1.8m deep and combine anaerobic and aerobic processes, followed by maturation
ponds, which are purely aerobic and are typically up to 1.2 - 1.5 metres deep. The main
function of facultative pond is to reduce the organic load while that of maturation ponds is to
remove pathogens. To reduce the area of land required, extensive ponds should, wherever
possible, be preceded by anaerobic ponds. For winter Punjab temperatures, the total land
requirement for a WSP system with anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds will be
about 2.5 m2/person, around 10 times that required for activated sludge and other aerobic
treatment options.
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab xiv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Constructed wetlands may be either vertical or horizontal flow and horizontal flow systems
can be further subdivided into those involving free surface and sub-surface flow. Most
systems in developing countries are of the latter type with a typical land requirement of about
1.5m2/person.
‘Intensive’ aerobic secondary treatment processes
Intensive processes can be divided into two broad categories, attached growth processes,
including trickling filters and rotating biological contactors (RBCs), and suspended growth
processes, including activated sludge and its variants. Some technologies combine
attached growth and suspended growth processes. The main advantages of intensive
processes are their low land take and their versatility. However, they are dependent on
power, which is a disadvantage in Punjab conditions, and can be expensive to run.
Trickling filters
Treatment in trickling filters takes place through the action of bacteria growing on the surface
of broken stone or clinker contained in circular or rectangular beds, typically about 1.8
metres deep. Well operated trickling filters can achieve 80 – 90% BOD removal, producing
a well nitrified effluent. The land requirement including preliminary and primary treatment is
typically around 0.33m2 per person.
Biological loading on conventional trickling filters is normally more critical than hydraulic
loading and this suggests that increasing BOD removal during primary treatment by using
UASBs rather than conventional settling tanks may lead to more cost effective use of
trickling filters.
The use of high rate filters with plastic rather than rock media may be appropriate for towns
such as Kasur in which industrial activity results in high strength wastewater.
Activated sludge
Activated sludge processes rely on air introduced to reactors either by mechanically
operated surface aerators or via diffuser holes located in pipes running along the bottom of
the tank and fed by air from a compressor. The latter are more efficient but are more prone
to blockage than surface aerators. Excess sludge leaves the tank together with the effluent
and is then separated from the treated wastewater in a clarifier. Activated sludge processes
require knowledgeable operators and are power dependent but use less land than trickling
filters.
Activated sludge treatment may be preceded settlement in clarifiers. This increases the land
requirement and capital cost but may be justified because it reduces the load on the
activated sludge reactor and hence the power requirement. The land requirement for the
reactor itself will normally be about 0.02m2 per person and for a complete plant, including
preliminary and primary treatment and secondary clarifiers around 0.15m3 per person,
depending on flow and whether or not primary settlement is provided.
Extended aeration is a form of activated sludge treatment but with a longer retention time (at
least 24 hours) and greater sludge age, typically 12 - 20 days as against 8 - 12 days for
xv Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab THE URBAN UNIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
conventional activated sludge plants. Extended aeration technologies, which include

oxidation ditches, have a higher power requirement than conventional activated sludge, a
clear disadvantage when power costs are high.
The sequenced batch reactor (SBR) is in essence an activated sludge technology in which
the various stages take place in time rather than space. Because all processes take place in
one reactor, SBRs have a low land take and offer capital cost savings because clarifiers are
not required. They are flexible and can be used to simulate both conventional activated
sludge and extended aeration processes. Their requirement for sophisticated timing units
and controls becomes problematic for larger works and the US EPA does not recommend
their use for flows greater than 5mgd (22.7mld). SBRs can achieve effluent standards of
better than 10 mg/l BOD and 10mg/l SS. SBRs are currently a favoured treatment option in
some states in India and in Egypt among other countries.
Moving bed biological reactors

Moving bed biological reactors (MBBRs) are a hybrid technology involving both attached and
suspended growth processes. They have a lower footprint than conventional activate sludge
plants and produce a high quality effluent. In Indian plants, attached growth processes take
place on small open plastic balls, designed to maximise the area that is available for
attached growth processes. MBBRs are a preferred treatment technology in some Indian
states but it is still rather early to assess their performance under field conditions.
Aerated lagoons
Aerated lagoons are basins, typically 2 – 5 metres in depth in which oxygen is supplied
mainly by mechanically induced aeration rather than algal photosynthesis. Most systems
use surface aerators although the Hayatabad plant in Peshawar used diffused bubble
aerators. Because sludge is not recirculated, aerated lagoons are simpler to operate than
activated sludge plants but by the same token, it is more difficult to control their
performance. With effective operation and maintenance, BOD removal can be as high as
90%, particularly if lagoons are followed by facultative ponds.
Lagoons may also be designed for partial or complete mixing, operating in a similar way to
conventional activated sludge but with no need to return sludge and keep the MLSS
concentration at an optimum level. Completely mixed lagoons require significantly more
power than partially mixed lagoons1. In facultative lagoons, the simplest form of lagoon,
the energy input is sufficient to transfer the amount of oxygen required but not sufficient to
keep solids in suspension. The design retention period is normally in the range 4 to 10 days.
The term facultative reflects the fact that they operate partly in aerobic and partly in
anaerobic mode with settled solids undergoing anaerobic decomposition. Facultative
lagoons use less energy than other mechanically aerated treatment processes2. On the
other hand, operators have little power to manage treatment processes. As with waste
1
The US EPA suggests 10 times but this applies to temperate climates and will have to be checked for
conditions in Punjab – see http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/apartlag.pdf
2
Metcalf and Eddy give a range of 1 – 1.25kW/103 cubic metres, compared with a figure of 5 ‐8kW/103 cubic
metres for partially mixed lagoons.
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab xvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
stabilisation ponds, periodic desludging is required and the plant will eventually fail if it is
neglected.
Where the loading onto the treatment plant is expected to grow over time, there may be a
case for installing anaerobic ponds in the first instance and later adding aerators to upgrade
them to aerated lagoons. If the aerated lagoons operate efficiently, this might allow the
design load to be increased by a factor of almost 100% over a 30 year facility life.
Membrane bioreactors (MBRs)

Membrane bioreactors combine suspended growth biological treatment processes with
membrane filtration to remove solids. Manufacturers of MBRs claim that they overcome the
problems associated with poor settling of sludge in conventional activated sludge processes.
They can be operated with higher volumetric loading rates and hence shorter reactor
retention times than conventional treatment processes, resulting in low space requirements.
The relatively long sludge retention time reduces sludge production and the effluent quality
can be very good. Against these advantages must be set high capital and energy costs, and
the need to control membrane fouling. However good the provision for defouling, fouling will
tend to increase over time, leading to either increased pressure drop or decreased capacity
and eventually necessitating replacement of the filters. They do not appear to be
appropriate for use in Punjab at present.
Disinfection
Most wastewater treatment processes are designed to reduce organic load rather than kill or
inactivate pathogens. One option for removing pathogens is to disinfect the effluent after
treatment. Chlorination is the most common ly used disinfection process but will only be
effective if most of the organic solids have already been removed from the effluent. It
requires a reliable supply of chlorine, in gaseous, liquid or solid form. A better option may be
to disinfect using ultra-violet radiation and this option has been used in a number of
countries. The UV radiation affects the genetic structure of pathogenic organisms, making it
impossible for them to reproduce, which prevents them from infecting people. UV radiation
has the added advantage that it does not create compounds that might harm organisms in
the receiving water. UV radiation is only effective when the effluent turbidity is low and so,
like chlorination, will not be effective if other aspects of treatment are ineffective. Effective
operation is dependent on frequent lamp maintenance and replacement.
PART 3 - MODELS
This section of the report identifies possible ‘model’ treatment processes for villages, small
and medium-sized towns and large towns and cities. Preferred models are identified based
on initial assessment of relevant factors, including capital and recurrent costs, land and
power requirements, operational requirements and effluent quality achieved. Critical factors
differ with different situations and are identified in relation to each situation and size of
settlement.
xvii Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab THE URBAN UNIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Villages
To be sustainable, treatment at the village level must be simple and cheap to run and ideally,
given the likelihood of load shedding, should not be dependent on a reliable power supply.
Taken together, these points suggest an approach that combines decentralised anaerobic
treatment in baffled reactors or upward flow anaerobic filters with more centralised
secondary treatment in ponds or constructed wetlands. The possibility of lining existing
village ponds and converting them into facultative ponds and, where they are large enough,
maturation ponds, should be explored. Where this is not possible, effluent from enhanced
primary treatment facilities might be carried to secondary treatment facilities outside the
village by solids-free sewers. Possibilities for providing decentralised local maturation ponds
in fields, designed to remove pathogens, might also be considered but this will only be
possible if farmers can be convinced of the need to treat the wastewater that they use for
irrigation.
The key challenge for villages, as for larger towns, will be to ensure effective desludging and
sludge treatment. This will mainly be required for the first ‘septic tank’ compartments of
baffled reactors and upward flow anaerobic filters. Desludging might be carried out using
conventional suction tankers and sludge could be treated on drying beds or constructed
wetlands. Sustainable arrangements for carrying out desludging and sludge treatment
operations will have to be put in place. The possibility of developing a commercial market for
treated sludge and involving the private sector in sludge collection and treatment activities
should be explored.
Small and medium-sized towns
As with villages, models for small and medium-sized towns should maximise the use of
existing facilities. They should be simple, minimising the need for specialist skills and, as far
as is possible, avoiding reliance on power. Retention time should be as long as possible so
as to maximise the removal of pathogens. Taken together, these factors favour the use of
waste stabilisation ponds and constructed wetlands, normally incorporating an initial
anaerobic stage to reduce the land requirement. In general, ponds should be preferred to
constructed wetlands since, despite requiring slightly more land, they should be simpler to
operate and less prone to operational problems.
Based on these considerations, the ideal wastewater treatment model for small and medium-
sized towns should incorporate manual screening followed by anaerobic, facultative and
maturation ponds. There should normally be at least two treatment ‘streams’ so that
treatment can continue while facilities have been taken out of service for routine
maintenance. This will be particularly important in the case of anaerobic ponds, which will
need periodic desludging.
In practice, it will often be difficult to obtain the land required for full waste stabilisation pond
treatment. Where this is the case, the possibility of following anaerobic ponds with
secondary ‘polishing’ ponds with a design retention time of 1 – 2 days should be considered.
If well managed, this combination of facilities could reduce organic loadings by around 75%,
resulting in an effluent that should achieve the current rather low EPA standards. Where a
higher standard of effluent is required, the option of following anaerobic ponds with
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab xviii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
facultative aerated lagoons might be appropriate, provided that a reliably source of power
can be assured.
Where land availability is insufficient to allow provision of full waste stabilisation pond
treatment, some form of disinfection will be required if the effluent is to be 100% safe for use
in irrigation. In practice, neither chlorination nor UV light disinfection is likely to be effective
for small towns because of the lack of technical skills and the relatively high turbidity of the
effluent from either polishing ponds or facultative lagoons. The best approach to protecting
health may therefore be to focus on protective measures for workers and encourage the
adoption of agricultural practices such as drip irrigation that minimise the chance that
pathogens will be transmitted to plants and workers.
Large towns and cities
Wastewater treatment to serve large towns and cities should normally be decentralised to
the level of existing major drainage areas, thus reducing the need for expensive pumps and
rising mains. However, linking of two or more existing drainage areas should be considered
where this will not incur large capital and recurrent costs.
Where suitable land is available at an affordable price, the use of extensive systems,
particularly waste stabilisation ponds, should be considered. This option is likely to be more
attractive in places, such as Rawalpindi, in which it is possible to discharge wastewater by
gravity to a location at some distance from the town or city itself.
The more typical situation, particularly in the Punjab plain, is that the land available at an
affordable price will be insufficient to allow the widespread use of extensive treatment
options. Where this is the case, preference should be given to treatment systems that
minimise the use of expensive energy and reliance on the unreliable electricity supply, have
some capacity to deal with fluctuations in biological and hydraulic load and are relatively
easy to operate. In general, energy-related objectives can best be achieved by maximising
organic load removal during primary treatment, using anaerobic ponds, UASBs or, perhaps,
chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT).
Anaerobic ponds provide the cheapest and simplest option but will need to be located at
some distance from residential areas if smell problems are to be avoided. UASBs will
require less land and will be more expensive to build although their cost should not be
significantly greater than that of conventional primary settling tanks. In addition to their low
land take, they have the added advantage that methane and other malodorous gases are
collected and can be either flared or used to create energy rather than being discharged to
the atmosphere.
The performance of UASBs, and indeed with all forms of anaerobic primary treatment, will
reduce during Punjab’s relatively cold winter months. Despite this, investment in anaerobic
primary treatment should be economically justified by the increased reduction in organic
load, as compared with conventional primary settlement, achieved over the 9 months or so
of the year during which the average temperature exceeds 20oC. Secondary treatment will
also be required, initially to ensure compliance with EPA standards and later to meet the
more stringent standards that will need to be set in the future if significant environmental
xix Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab THE URBAN UNIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
improvements are to be achieved. However, the higher performance achieved through the
use of enhanced primary treatment should allow some reduction in the capital and
operational cost of secondary treatment.
CEPT and its variant Advanced Primary Treatment (APT) appear to offer benefits in terms of
good pathogen removal. However, further research is required to assess the scale of these
benefits, the amount of sludge produced and the operational requirements of CEPT and
APT. They should therefore only be introduced at a pilot scale at present.
Enhanced primary treatment, of whatever kind, will normally have to be followed by some
form of secondary treatment if environmental and health objectives are to be met. Options
for secondary treatment include polishing ponds, trickling filters, submerged biological
aerated filters, aerated lagoons, activated sludge and its variants and membrane
bioreactors. Because of their relatively low energy requirement, trickling filters and
submerged biological aerated filters would appear to offer the best secondary treatment
options, although polishing ponds may be considered where land is available and a relatively
low effluent quality is acceptable. Activated sludge may be an appropriate technology where
land availability is limited. Moving bed biological reactors (MBBRs) are worth investigating
further because of they use less energy than conventional activated sludge. SBRs might
offer more operational flexibility, which could be a relevant factor when considering treatment
options for an anaerobic influent but will have similar energy requirements to activated
sludge. Membrane bioreactors are unlikely to be a realistic option at present because of their
high capital and operational cost, despite the fact that they can produce a very high quality
effluent and remove most pathogens.
Studies in India have revealed that at land prices up to $8 and $13 square metre for discount
rates of 10% and 5% respectively, waste stabilisation pond systems are cheaper than
UASBs followed by polishing ponds. Ponds have an even bigger cost advantage over more
sophisticated aerobic treatment methods but further work is required to establish cost
relationships and comparisons for Punjab. In many cases, the decision to adopt a treatment
option other than an extensive pond system will depend on land availability as much as on
cost comparisons between ponds and other treatment systems.
Based on these considerations, the model treatment works for large towns and cities without
sufficient land to provide extensive treatment in a pond system should include the following
components:
• Mechanically raked screens (ideally coarse screens prior to inlet pumps and fine
screens later).
• Grit removal, probably in rectangular horizontal flow grit chambers (not required if
primary treatment is provided in anaerobic ponds).
• Flow measurement (normally using a parshall flume or equivalent).
• Enhanced primary treatment in an anaerobic pond or UASB
• Secondary treatment, by trickling filters where land is available but otherwise by
submerged biological aerated filters or perhaps activated sludge or an SBR.
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab xx
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Disinfection, preferably using UV light, where an effluent with low turbidity can be
guaranteed and wastewater is used for irrigation.
PART 4 – STRATEGY OPTIONS

A realistic strategy is required to move from the current situation, in which almost no
wastewater is treated, to the overall objective of treating all wastewater to the level required
to protect both human health and the environment. The strategy must take account of the
demand for improved wastewater management, existing facilities and systems, the
objectives to be achieved and the influence of location on those objectives and resource
availability.
Demand
Demand is important since without demand the funds required to sustain improved
wastewater treatment are unlikely to be forthcoming. Initial efforts to create and inform
demand should be aimed at senior officials and policy makers but it will also be necessary to
create demand among farmers and consumers for wastewater that is used for irrigation to be
adequately treated. Officials who will responsible for the day to day management of
wastewater disposal systems must also be convinced of the need for treatment. Successful
pilot projects can help to generate and inform demand.
Objectives and focus areas
The initial focus should be (a) on discharges to rivers in which the water quality is currently
just acceptable or could be brought within acceptable limits with relatively small investment
in wastewater treatment and (b) on wastewater that is used for irrigation. The Chenab is the
river that best fits into category (a). In both cases larger towns and cities should be targeted
first.
Developing the information base
In order to ensure that interventions are appropriate and well targeted, the strategy must
include provision for improving information systems and developing good baseline
information. Information will be required on wastewater discharges, the relationship between
wastewater quality and health and the performance of various treatment options in Punjab
conditions. The latter may be achieved, at least partly, by monitoring the performance of pilot
and demonstration facilities. The aim when monitoring pilots should be to test the
assumptions that underlie these recommendations, where necessary modifying and
developing recommended models in the light of experience.
Developing and strengthening institutions
The strategy should cover the institutional arrangements for managing those facilities and
processes. The options to be explored include continued direct management by government
departments, contracting out of some or all management responsibilities, corporatisation and
the development of new oversight and management arrangements, perhaps involving the
creation of a provincial wastewater management board.
xxi Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab THE URBAN UNIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Continuation of direct management is likely to be most appropriate for larger towns and
cities, which already have some institutional capacity to manage water supply and
wastewater disposal systems. It will only be effective if systems are improved and capacity
for improved wastewater management is built. The latter will require both training and
changes in procedures to ensure that responsibilities are devolved to appropriate levels and
that incentive systems encourage innovation and reward good performance. Contracting out
is likely to be a part of any strategy to continue direct management but may require action to
build the capacity of contractors and introduce effective monitoring systems, with appropriate
sanctions being applied in the event of non-performance.
The term corporatisation is used here to denote the creation of government-owned corporate
utilities rather than divestiture of assets to the private sector. The key to success will be
ensuring that any corporate entity has a greater degree of autonomy than that enjoyed by
WASAs at present. Support to corporate organi sations in the form of training and focused
consultancy inputs will be required. Obtaining full cost recovery on wastewater treatment will
be difficult and so corporate bodies will require some subsidy from government, at least in
the medium term.
The Wastewater Disposal Board option may be appropriate for villages and small towns. It
offers the possibility of a specialised body dedicated solely to supporting the spread of
improved wastewater management and will help to address the constraints presented by the
obvious lack of capacity to manage wastewater disposal systems in villages and small
towns.
Next steps
Any strategy is only as effective as the first steps taken to implement it. With this in mind, the
following next steps in implementing the strategy and so moving towards the objective of
100% safe and environmentally friendly disposal of wastewater are proposed:
• Carry out a more detailed assessment of the preferred treatment processed
recommended in the ‘Models’ section of this report.
• Take further action to raise awareness amo ng senior decision makers of the importance
of improved wastewater management, including appropriate forms of treatment.
• Plan, design, implement, operate and assess a number of pilot projects, designed to
field test technologies and approaches. These should include field testing of the village
and small town models recommended in this report and implementation of pilot scale
treatment plants in larger cities. Opportunities for linking such initiatives to ongoing
projects and involving international agencies and NGOs with appropriate experience
should be explored.
• Investigate, implement, monitor and assess innovative management models, where
possible and appropriate linking these to the piloting of new technologies and
approaches.
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab xxii
Chapter 1
Existing Situation
1. Introduction
This report assesses existing wastewater disposal practices and treatment facilities in
Pakistan in general and Punjab in particular. It covers both existing wastewater treatment
provision and present arrangements for wastewater disposal, including the widespread
practice of using untreated wastewater for irrigation of agricultural lands.
Section 2 provides a brief summary of existing drainage arrangements, providing information

on the full range of situations from villages through small towns, larger towns and peri-urban
areas to large cities
Section 3 summarises information on existing treatment facilities, with further more detailed
information given in Annex 1. Information on existing facilities is based on a combination of
personal experience, unpublished reports and papers and reports that are available on the
internet.
Section 4 provides an overview of wastewater reuse arrangements, based largely on the

published papers of the International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
Section 5 provides information on environmental and health impacts of sewage treatment.

Information on health impacts draws on published IWMI papers while that on environmental
impacts is taken from reports of the Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources
(PCRWR).
2. Existing drainage facilities

2.1 Villages
Most villages in the Punjab plains have one or more village ponds. Originally intended to
provide water for animals and other uses, these ponds now receive untreated wastewater
flows from open drains, which carry both household wastewater and storm flows. Over the
years, the percentage of houses with flushed toilets has risen to an average of perhaps 70 –
80% province-wide. Most black water from flushed toilets is discharged to open drains,
sometimes, but not always via crude septic tanks. The latter normally have two
compartments but observation suggests that they are rarely if ever emptied. This means
that the septic tanks are likely to have little effect on the organic load discharged to village
ponds. The result is that the ponds are invariably polluted.
In some, perhaps many, cases, wastewater is pumped from ponds for use in irrigation. The
ponds provide some degree of treatment although their shallow depth, the absence of any
desludging arrangements and the possibility of short-circuiting mean that level of treatment
provided is probably low. The lack of hard edges and systems to remove vegetation from
the sides of ponds mean that they provide ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other
pests.
THE URBAN UNIT Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab 1
Chapter 1
2.2 Smaller towns
To a greater extent than in villages, residents of small towns use flush toilets. As in villages,
these mostly connect to open drains, often but not always through crude septic tanks located
on individual house connections. The open drains also carry storm flows but limited flows
and poor maintenance mean that they often have little capacity so that flooding occurs
during storms. Some housing schemes are sewered, usually to a local pumping station,
commonly referred to as a disposal station, from which wastewater is pumped into an open
drain or channel.
In towns on the Potohar Plateau, sufficient fall may be available to allow drains to flow
entirely by gravity. In such cases, wastewater flows may be discharged at a number of
locations around the town and may be used for irrigation. The flat terrain means that most
wastewater flows in the Punjab plains have to be pumped. A small town may have one or
more small pumping stations to lift wastewater into open channels, often referred to as
‘sullage carriers’, which convey the wastewater out of the town and discharge it to directly to
fields, to agricultural drains or to natural water bodies. Wastewater discharged directly to
fields is obviously used for irrigation but it is also not uncommon for wastewater to be
diverted or pumped from agricultural drains for irrigation purposes.
Most pumping stations are in poor condition and there is often only one operational pump.
Together, these conditions create a risk of frequent interruptions in pumping, resulting in
flooding with untreated wastewater. Figure1 is an example from Faisalabad District.
Figure 1 Wastewater pumping station in Tandlianwala, Faisalabad District
2 Safe Disposal of Waste Water - Model for Punjab THE URBAN UNIT
Chapter 1
2.3 Larger towns and cities
Most residents of larger towns and cities use flush toilets. This is true even in ‘informal’ areas
and ‘katchi abadis’. Most houses in central business districts and ‘planned’ areas are
connected to sewers that are provided and maintained by public authorities, WASAs in the
case of the largest cities and TMAs elsewhere 3. However, not all houses in currently
sewered areas are connected to sewers. Peripheral areas are less likely to be sewered. In
many ‘informal’ areas, in other words those built without recourse to official planning
procedures, wastewater is discharged to open drains. As in smaller towns and villages, black
water is usually routed through an individual household septic tank before being discharged
to the drain. Figure 2 shows individual household septic tanks in an informal settlement on
the edge of Faisalabad. The photograph shows a fairly early stage of development and the
open drain has not yet been lined but lining normally follows, perhaps with funds provided
through an elected representative from the local Union Council.
In medium-sized towns and in some larger towns, for instance Chiniot, trunk and collector
sewers have been built to receive flows form existing open drains.
Figure 2 – Septic tanks connected to unlined open drain in Faisalabad
3
Although most sewers in non‐WASA towns were originally laid by the PHED.
Chapter 1
3. Existing treatment facilities

At present, very few towns in Pakistan in general and Punjab in particular have functioning
wastewater treatment facilities. In 2002, the Ministry of Water and Power reported that in the
country as a whole only 1% of domestic and industrial wastewater received treatment4.
This compares with the Vision of the Pakistan Water Sector Strategy (2002), that 80% of the
urban population should be provided with functional sewerage and that there should be full
compliance with EPA wastewater disposal standards by 2025.
A preliminary list of municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), functioning and non-
functioning is given below, starting with those in Punjab and going on to those in the rest of
the country.
3.1 Wastewater treatment in Punjab
• Islamabad Plants 1 and 2 Diffused air activated sludge plant with capacity of 4mgd
(18,200m3/d), commissioned in the 1960s. Recently refurbished with financial
assistance from the French Government.
• Islamabad Plant 3 Activated sludge plant, capacity 3mgd (13,600m 3/d), constructed in
the early 1980s but not commissioned due to contractual problems. Recently
refurbished with finance provided partly by the French Government
• Islamabad Plant 4 Activated sludge plant, capacity 10mgd (45,400m 3/d), recently
constructed under the same design and build contract as the refurbishment of the other
three Islamabad plants. The contractor is the French firm Veolia and the total design
population for the four plants is 335,000.
• Faisalabad – Waste stabilisation pond (WSP) system, consisting of six anaerobic ponds,
two facultative ponds and four maturation ponds. Design capacity 90,000m3/d and
serving around 32% of Faisalabad’s population. Commissioned in 1998
There are proposals for new WWTPs to serve Dera Ghazi Khan (D G Khan) and Shujabad,
to be implemented under the ADB-funded Southern Punjab Basic Urban Services Project.
There are also proposals for a new plant to serve Rawalpindi, to be located near the village
of Adiala, to be funded under an ADB loan.
Further information on the Islamabad and Faisalabad plants is given in Annex 1.
4
Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Water and Power (October 2002). "Pakistan Water Sector Strategy.
Executive Summary. Volume 1". Retrieved on 29th May 2008, p. 7
Chapter 1
3.2 Wastewater treatment elsewhere in Pakistan
• Hayatabad, Peshawar Diffused air aerated lagoons followed by facultative and

maturation ponds. (Constructed in late 1980s but no longer functional)
• Kohat – WSP system (anaerobic, facultative and small maturation ponds) Constructed
but never commissioned.
• Karachi – There are three treatment plants at SITE, Mehmoodabad and Mauripur. The
first two are trickling filter plants and the third a system of WSPs. The total stated
design capacity for the three plants is 151mgd (685,000m3/d) although only about
90mgd (409,000m3/d) is actually being treated5. The two trickling filter plants were built
in the 1960s and the Mauripur WSP was commissioned in 1998.
• Southern Treatment Plant, Hyderabad – facultative and maturation ponds. In the early
1990s, the flow into this plant was reported as being less than the design because
sewage was being diverted for agriculture. The Northern Treatment Plant, built in 1988
was reported not to have been commissioned.
• Small WSP treatment plants in Sindh and south-eastern parts of Baluchistan. Khowaja 6
reports that there are 83 urban and 208 rural wastewater treatment plants in the two
provinces, all based on 0.9m deep waste stabilisation ponds. However, it seems that
many of these plants are not working as intended. Certainly, one plant in Khairpur,
Northern Sindh, visited in December 2007, is no longer receiving flows. Of three plants
in Larkana, only one is partially operational.
3.3 Industrial treatment
There are a few treatment plants for industrial effluent in Pakistan. Most of these appear to
be small, with capacities less than 100m3/day but some are rather larger. For instance,
Monnowal Dyeing in Mianchanu is operating a mechanical aeration plant with a capacity of
30m3/hr. Another relatively large plant is that installed for Packages Limited for its new
5
For further information see http://www.kwsb.gos.pk/sewerage.asp . The 151mgd figure seems to be rather
theoretical and may apply only to primary treatment.
6
Khowaja, A K (2000) Waste stabilisation ponds – design guidelines for Southern Pakistan, paper presented
at 26th WEDC Conference at Dhaka, Bangladesh – see
http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/conferences/pdfs/26/Khowaja.pdf
Chapter 1
Bulleh Shah paper mill in Kasur. This consists of two circular primary clarifiers and two
secondary clarifiers, as well as floating surface aerators and spray coolers for the paper
company's biological wastewater treatment facility7. An potentially interesting aspect of the
initiative is that the contract with Siemens Pakistan includes provision for Siemens to provide
ongoing service and maintenance as well as design and construction.
Further investigations are required to assess the current situation in this sector. However, it
does appear that some Punjab-based companies have the capacity and contacts to provide
technologies and services to TMAs. The challenge will be to interest them in providing
services.
3.4 Proposed and ongoing wastewater treatment initiatives
The Asian Development Bank-funded South Punjab Basic Urban Services Project is working
in the following towns in Southern Punjab: Bahawalpur, Ahmadpur East, Hasilpur, Khaipur,
Tamewali, Yazman, Dera Ghazi Khan, Taunsa, Jahanian, Kabirwala, Khanewal, Mian,
Channu, Jalalpur Pirwala, Qadirpur Ran, Shujabad, Alupur, Jatoi, Kot Addu, Jampur,
Rajanpur, Rojhan and Multan. The loan agreement 8 states that new wastewater treatment
plants are to be constructed under the project in all these towns apart from Ahmadpur East
and Hasilpur. The proposal for Khanewal in volves provision of anaerobic and facultative
ponds on a 24.5ha site to treat a projected flow of 28,896m3/d. The wastewater BOD is
estimated to be 364mg/l and it is intended that the effluent will have a BOD of less than
50mg/l. The available information suggests that most of the other proposed plants are also
based on WSP treatment.
The Asian Development Bank is also providing funding for a new wastewater treatment plant
to serve Rawalpindi. Treatment will be in waste stabilisation ponds, which will be situated
some distance from Rawalpindi itself at a location where land can be purchased at the price
required to ensure that the scheme is affordable.
4. Present wastewater reuse practices

A study carried out in the early 2000s estimated that 26% of all vegetable production in
Pakistan is based on cultivation using wastewater, almost all of which was untreated 9. The
same study found that less than 2% of all towns with a population of greater than 10,000
inhabitants had any form of treatment and that 80% of towns and cities surveyed were using
untreated wastewater for crop irrigation. A surv ey carried out by IWMI in twelve towns and
cities in Southern Punjab revealed that in every town and city with a wastewater disposal
scheme, wastewater irrigation occurred around the disposal stations. In all cases,
wastewater was used without treatment and without restriction on the type of crop grown.
In-depth study of the town of Haroonabad revealed that wastewater was being used to
7
The secondary clarifiers use Siemens proprietry Rim‐Flo/Tow‐Bro system, which is claimed to be more
efficient than conventional clarifiers but this claim needs to be checked.
8
See http://www.adb.org/Documents/Legal‐Agreements/PAK/23213/23213 ‐PAK‐SFJ.pdf
9
See Ensink J, Mahmood T, van der Hoek W, Raschid‐Sally L and Amerasinghe A (2004) A nationwide
assessment of wastewater use in Pakistan: an obscure activity or a vitally important one, Water Policy, 6
197‐206.
Chapter 1
irrigate vegetables, particularly cauliflower, cotton and fodder crops 10. Many TMAs charge
farmers for untreated wastewater. Further research would be needed to obtain a rigorous
idea of the amount charged but a typical figure for a small town can be taken to be around
Rs200,000 per year while the amount collected from farmers receiving water from
Faisalabad’s western outfall sewer was Rs440,000 per year in 2001. This level of income is
not sufficient to cover the full operational costs of sewage treatment.
5. Environmental and health impacts

As already indicated, few towns and cities in Pakistan are currently providing any form of
sewage treatment. Discharging untreated sew age to natural water courses clearly has
potential adverse environmental impacts while using untreated wastewater for irrigation has
health implications.
The Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) Water Quality Report
2003-2004 includes information on water quality in Punjab rivers. It states that dissolved
oxygen (DO) levels in the Jhelum River remained well above 7 mg/l with the BOD
downstream of Jhelum only 2.2 mg/l. This relatively good situation can be explained partly
by the absence of large towns along the river, apart from Jhelum, and partly by the good flow
that is maintained in the river. The PCRWR investigation found that the situation in the
Chenab and the Ravi was much less satisfactory. The Chenab receives polluting loads from
many industries and cities and the DO was found to be totally depleted in some stretches.
The BOD5 downstream of Faisalabad was 4.2mg/l, which seems surprisingly low given that
oxygen was depleted. The Ravi is the most polluted of the three rivers, not surprisingly as it
is estimated to receive 47% of the total municipal and industrial wastewater pollution load
discharged to all rivers in Pakistan. The highest inflows of wastewater occur between
Lahore and Balloki over a length of 62km. The BOD 5 in the river downstream of the point at
which it receives municipal discharges from Lahore was estimated to be 77 mg/l on the basis
of mean average flow11 . Under low flow conditions, which are now normal because the river
is dammed in India, the river is completely devoid of DO between Lahore and Balloki and is
acting essentially as a sullage drain.
The BOD5 in the Indus River down.stream of Attock is 2.9mg/l, again relatively low. PCRWR
give no information on DO levels in the river but they can be expected to be reasonably high,
probably on a par with those in the Jhelum River. Nitrate levels at Dadu Moro Bridge and
Kotri Barrage were 1.1mg/l and 7.5mg/l respectively while BOD5 levels were 2.4mg/l and
4.1mg/l.
Some towns discharge wastewater directly to rivers. Examples include Jhelum and PD
Khan, both of which discharge to the River Jhelum. Others, perhaps the majority, discharge
wastewater to agricultural drains which eventually discharge to one of the five large rivers.
There is relatively little hard information on water quality in drains but inspection of drains
10
See van der Hoek W, Ul Hassan M, Ensink J, Feentra S, Raschid Sally L, Munir S, Aslam S, Ali N, Hussain R
and Matsuno Y (2002), Urban wastewater: A valuable resource for agriculture: A case study of Haroonabad,
Pakistan, Research Report 63, Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management Institute
11
Presumably, this figure is extrapolated from actual BOD measurements at different flow.
Chapter 1
downstream of Faisalabad and smaller drains receiving wastewater from towns such as
Sambrial suggests that the drains are operating predominantly as wastewater carriers and
that the wastewater in them is virtually undiluted. Bubbles rising to the surface indicate the
presence of anaerobic digestion, suggesting that DO levels are very low.
Regardless of the flow in the receiving water body or its water quality, Pakistan
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards require that the BOD 5 and suspended
solids (SS) of wastewater discharged to natural water courses do not exceed 80mg/l and
200 mg/l respectively. Information on wastewater quality in Pakistan is limited but assuming
a 50gm per person per day BOD5 load and an average wastewater generation rate of 120
litres per person per day, the BOD 5 concentration in wastewater will be 416mg/l. Measured
figures in Northern India tend to be less than this, perhaps because of higher water use and
the fact that not all WC effluents are discharged to drains and the situation may be similar in
Pakistan. Even assuming that the average wastewater BOD5 concentration is only 250mg/l,
both primary and secondary treatment are likely to be required to meet the EPA BOD 5
standard.
The Haroonabad studies revealed high prevalence of hookworm and roundworm (ascaris
lumbricoides) in workers on land irrigated with untreated wastewater. The prevalence of
hookworm among adult wastewater-farm workers was found to be 80%, which the authors of
the study report say is an extremely high figure for Pakistan. IWMI studies of the Faisalabad
waste stabilisation ponds found rather disappointing results in terms of removal of E.coli and
helminth eggs, particularly hookworm eggs. IWMI suggest some reasons for this, including
the possibility that prevailing winds are leading to some short-circuiting in ponds but this
subject requires further investigation. What can be said with some certainty is that
‘conventional’ sewage treatment processes, including both trickling filters, activated sludge
processes and their variants, are unlikely to perform any better than ponds in removing
pathogens. This has implications for the design of wastewater treatment, disposal and reuse
strategies that require further investigation.
A more recent study conducted in Faisalabad by the IWMI team has revealed further
potentially important issues with regard to contamination of food crops irrigated with
wastewater12. The study compared E.Coli and helminth contamination of vegetables that
had been irrigated with wastewater immediately after harvesting and approximately 12 hours
later in the local market. The study found relatively low concentrations of E. coli (1.9 E. coli
per gram), but relatively high concentrations of helminths (0.7 eggs per gram) on vegetables
collected from agricultural fields. Higher concentration of both E. coli (14.3 E. coli per gram)
and helminths (2.1 eggs per gram) were recovered from the vegetables collected from the
market. The researchers concluded that unhygienic post harvest handling was the major
source of produce contamination and suggested that interventions at the market, including
the provision of clean water so that produce can be washed before sale will be more cost
effective in protecting human health than wastewater treatment.
12
See Ensink, Jeroen H. J; Mahmood, Tariq ; Dalsgaard, Anders (December 2007) Wastewater-irrigated
vegetables: market handling versus irrigation water quality, Tropical Medicine & International Health. Vol 12
Suppl. 2: pages 2 - 7
Chapter 2 Waste Water Treatment
Technologies and Options
1. Introduction
1.1 Objectives of treatment
There are two possible objectives for wastewater treatment:

1. To remove suspended solids and organic materials that would otherwise adversely affect the
quality of receiving waters.
2. To remove pathogens (health-threatening organisms), which would otherwise infect people
who come into contact with the wastewater.
Most ‘conventional’ sewage treatment systems are concerned with the first. They are designed
to remove:
• Offensive solids such as soiled rags and paper and condoms;
• Organic material, which would otherwise take up the dissolved oxygen in the receiving water
course, leading to fish kills and unpleasant smells.
• Suspended solids, which may also have an adverse effect on the quality of the receiving
water course.
They are less successful in removing pathogens. The most probable number (MPN) of faecal
coliforms (e.coli), the indicator organism for pathogens, in raw sewage can reach 10 7 per 100ml
or more. This figure compares with the WHO’s st andard for unrestricted irrigation that the MPN
of faecal coliforms should not exceed 1000 per 100ml. Thus, for unrestricted irrigation, coliform
levels have to be reduced by a factor of at least 10 4. The WHO no longer sets faecal coliform
standards for wastewater used for restricted irrigation, in other words irrigation of crops that are
not eaten raw. However, workers need to take appropriate measures to prevent infection while
working in sewage irrigated fields.
Research suggests that success in removing helminth eggs is even more important from a health
perspective than that in reducing faecal coliform levels. The WHO require a concentration of less
than 1 helminth egg per litre for wastewater used to irrigate crops that are to be eaten raw.
Indeed, recent epidemiological research suggests that a limit as low as 0.1 egg per litre is
required to protect the health of children exposed to the wastewater13. In general, the longer the
retention time provided by the treatment, the greater the pathogen removal. Well maintained
waste stabilization pond systems, providing around 20 days retention time should achieve at
least the required 104 reduction factor in faecal coliforms. Ponds and constructed wetlands are
also the best option for removing helminth eggs although other treatment processes do achieve
reductions. Since it is difficult to completely remove pathogens from surface water sources,
drinking water can normally only be completely protected by good water treatment. Wastewater
treatment will, however, reduce health risks to those who enter water courses to fish, clean
13
Blumenthal, U., Mara, D., Peasey, A., Ruiz‐Palacios, G. and Stott, R. (2000). Guidelines for the
microbiological quality of treated wastewater used in agriculture: Recommendation for revising the WHO
guidelines. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(9), 1104–1116.
Chapter 2
clothes, utensils and vehicles etc, workers on land irrigated with wastewater and those who
consume the produce produced on that land, particularly uncooked produce. .
When wastewater is treated, it may provide useful resources. For instance, digested sewage
sludge may be used as a soil conditioner while treated wastewater may be used to irrigate crops.
This may provide a financial incentive for treatment. However, a fairly high degree of treatment is
required to reduce pathogen counts to levels that can ‘officially’ be considered safe.
1.2 Level of treatment required
Key Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for discharge to inland
waters as stated in S.R.O. 549 (I)/2000 are as follows:
Five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand at 20oC (BOD5) 80mg/l
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 150mg/l

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 200mg/l
Ammonia (NH3 ( 40mg/l
The Statutory Notification does not set bacterial standards and so appears to be mainly
concerned with protecting the environment. It assumes that wastes will be discharged into a
water body that can provide at least 1:10 dilution, in other words one volume of wastewater
will be diluted by at least 10 volumes of water in the receiving water body.
The Centre for Environmental Health Activities (CEHA) of the World Health Organization
(WHO) states that no specific standards are promulgated for wastewater reuse in Pakistan.
The WHO itself sets fairly stringent standards for wastewater that is reused to irrigate crops
and it is certain that these standards are not met at present although the reuse of
wastewater for irrigation is widespread in Punjab14.
1.3 Wastewater treatment processes
Almost all wastewater treatment technologies are based on processes that occur in the
natural environment. Some are physical and some are biological in nature.
Physical processes include screening, which removes rags and other large solids,
maceration which cuts them into smaller pieces, and sedimentation, which removes
settleable solids from the wastewater flow. Grit removal is one particular form of
sedimentation, focusing particularly on heavier particles.
Settling processes can be enhanced by the use of metal salts such as aluminium sulphate,
ferric chloride and ferric sulphate. These encourage suspended particles to coagulate and
thus facilitate settling. The merits of such chemically enhanced primary treatment
(CEPT) processes will be considered later in this note.
Biological processes fall into two broad categories:
14
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) has produced a number of reports on this.
Chapter 2
• Aerobic processes that use bacteria and other organisms that feed on waste products
and break them down, taking oxygen from their surroundings in order to do so; and
• Anaerobic processes that use bacteria that take the oxygen they require from the
materials upon which they are feeding.
Physical and biological processed can be combined in various ways and some sewage
treatment processes combine physical and biological processes. For instance, a septic tank
is designed to settle out suspended solids but once settled, the solids are subject to
anaerobic digestion, a biological process.
1.4 Stages in sewage treatment
Effective wastewater treatment is achieved by combining different types of wastewater

treatment process in an appropriate way. When considering the options for doing this, it is
normal to distinguish between the following treatment stages:
4. Preliminary treatment – almost entirely physical in nature and intended to either

remove unwanted items from the wastewater flow or cut them up to a size that can
be handled by the sewage treatment process.
5. Primary treatment – predominantly involving physical sedimentation but including

some biological processes particularly in anaerobic processes.
6. Secondary treatment – predominantly biological but may involve some physical

processes. In particular, aerobic treatment processes often require that solids
produced as a result of the process are settled and either returned to an earlier stage
in the treatment process are removed and disposed of.
Where there is a need for a very high standard of effluent, secondary treatment may be
followed by tertiary or ‘polishing’ treatment, which is also mainly biological in nature.
The stages in treatment, together with specific processes that might be appropriate at each
stage are shown in Figure 1
Preliminary Primary Secondary

treatment treatment treatment
Screening Settling tanks Normally aerobic
(Perhaps with tube Trickling filters Tertiary
Flow balancing or plate settlers) Activated sludge treatment
distribution or And or
Anaerobic Secondary settling
Grit removal
Disinfection
treatment options tanks
If required
(Offer greater Some sludge may
Flow measurement removal of be recycled
biological load)
Flow division
Figure 3 Wastewater treatment stages and processes
Chapter 2
Some treatment processes omit a stage. For instance, some activated sludge processes do
not require primary treatment while some aspects of preliminary treatment are not required
for waste stabilisation pond systems. Others can combine aspects of primary and secondary
treatment, as is the case for example with facultative waste stabilisation ponds that are not
preceded by anaerobic ponds. In some cases, conditions may be such that secondary
treatment is not required, at least in the first instance. Specific cases will be explained at
appropriate points in the text.
2. Preliminary treatment processes

Preliminary treatment processes normally include screening/maceration, to remove or cut up
large solids, and grit removal to remove heavy solids. Flow balancing may be required to
ensure that the flow through later treatment processes does not fluctuate beyond the limits
required by later treatment processes.
Screening or maceration is required for most municipal sewage treatment processes but grit
removal is not essential before facultative waste stabilisation ponds.
Preliminary treatment is not provided before local community or household level treatment
technologies such as septic tanks, baffled reactors and upward-flow anaerobic filters.
2.1 Screening
Screening options include the following:

Coarse screens
Coarse screens are provided before pumps to remove gross solids that might block the
pump impeller or accumulate on tank weirs or around the sides of treatment ponds. They
consist of parallel bars, placed at an angle in a chamber so that the sewage flow must pass
through the openings between the bars. Metcalf and Eddy15 describe all screens with
openings greater than 6mm (1/4”) in width as coarse. Escritt16 reserves the term for screens
with openings greater than about 40mm (1.5”), referring to screens with openings in the
range 10mm to 40mm as medium. The closer the bar spacing, the more material will be
caught on the screen.
Screens have to be raked regularly to prevent material from building up behind them and
eventually blocking the flow. This may be done manually or mechanically. At present, most
screens in Pakistan are manually raked. Hand raking of screens is a labour intensive
process and normal practice worldwide is to provide mechanically raked screens for all but
the smallest wastewater flows. However, inspection of mechanical screens in India revealed
that almost all had broken down.
The design of manually raked screens should aim to make the job of raking as easy as
possible, since sewage works operatives are likely to neglect jobs that they view as difficult
and dirty. Good design provides incentives for jobs to be done properly.
15
Metcalf and Eddy Inc (2003). Wastewater engineering, treatment and reuse, Fourth Edition New York
McGrawHill
16
Escritt L B (1972) Public Health Engineering Practice, Vol II Sewerage and Sewage Disposal, Fourth Edition,
London, Macdonald and Evans
Chapter 2
Mechanically raked screens will be needed for larger wastewater treatment works designed
to serve towns and cities. They fall into two basic categories:
1. Straight bar screens, in which the raking device is operated through a chain drive.
2. Curved bar and radial bar screens, in which the raking device pivots around a central
point rather than moving as a whole. (Appropriate for small to medium flows)
Straight bar screens can be further subdivided into front-raked and back-raked screens and
those that involve reciprocating screens and those that return the rake to the bottom of the
bar screen from the front or the back.
While they are essential, particularly for larger wastewater flows, mechanically raked
screens are susceptible to breakdown. To reduce the impact of failure and allow for
maintenance, the flow should be divided with at least two mechanical screens provided,
together with a standby hand-raked screen. Essential spare parts should be kept in stock
and arrangements should be in place for rapid repair in the event of a screen failure.
Fine screens
Fine screens may be used for preliminary treatment, following coarse bar screens, and have
also been used as an alternative to sedimentation at the primary treatment stage at small
wastewater treatment works. Openings may be 2mm across or even less.
Fine screens include the following types:
1. Static wedgewire screens, typically with 0.2 to 1.2mm clear openings and designed
for flow rates of 400 – 1200 litres per square meter per minute. These are relatively
simple but the head-loss across them is large, typically 1.2 to 2 metres. They must
be cleaned at least once daily using high pressure hot water. The successful use of
fine static screens is reported from Brazil17. The design requires the wastewater to
be lifted so that it can fall onto the curved sloping screen but to date it has not been
possible to obtain an independent evaluation of this system.
2. Drum screens – in which the screening medium is mounted on a cylinder that rotates
in a channel carrying the wastewater flow. Flow may be into the inside of the drum at
one end with solids collection on the inner surface of the screen or onto the top of the
drum and passing through into the interior of the drum, with solids collection on the
outer surface. Internally fed screens have a higher throughput, typically 0.03 to
0.8m3/sec
3. Step screens – consisting of sets of step-shaped vertical plates, one set fixed and the
other rotating. The fixed and movable plates alternate across the width of an open
channel and together form the screen. The movable plates rotate vertically, lifting any
waste material that has caught on them and depositing it at the next step landing,
from which it is picked up and moved up again until it is deposited in a channel at the
top of the screen. The circular pattern of the moving plates provides a self-cleaning
mechanism. The openings between screen plates are typically 3 – 6mm in width
although smaller openings are possible. However, solids trapped on the screen form
17
Reported to the author by a Brazilian engineer providing support to a World Bank‐funded project in
Cambodia.
Chapter 2
a ‘filter mat’ which results in smaller sized particles being filtered out. Step screens
are currently being installed in an upgraded inlet screen arrangement for Chandigarh
WWTP in India.
While there has been a move towards increased use of fine screens worldwide, further
investigation is required to establish whether they are suitable for conditions in Punjab.
Comminutors
Comminutors consist of a stationary screen, circular in plan, and a rotating arm with cutting
teeth that meshes with the screen and shreds any material that is caught on it. The
shredded material then passes through the screen and into the downstream channel, which
connects into the bottom of the comminutor itself. They can only be used for small flows and
they tend to produce stringy material that may collect on downstream treatment equipment.
For these reasons, and the fact that that they are dependent on power, they do not appear
to be a good option for use in Punjab.
Macerators
Macerators consist of rotating assemblies with blades that rotate in opposite directions.
They blades have a close tolerance so that solids are chopped up as they pass through the
unit. They are less likely than comminutors to produce strings of material that may collect on
downstream equipment. However, they do r equire power and have greater maintenance
needs than simpler equipment. For these reasons, they do not appear to be a good option
for use in Punjab.
2.2 Grit removal
Grit removal is required to protect moving mechanical equipment from abrasion, reduce
formation of heavy deposits in pipelines, channels and conduits and reduce the frequency of
digester cleaning caused by excessive loads of grit. In practice, the units that are likely to
suffer most from excessive grit loads are primary sedimentation tanks while grit removal at
the wastewater treatment works site will not solve the problem of deposits in sewers. The
latter is certainly a major problem in Pakistan, as demonstrated by the work done in Lahore
in the 1990s by Carl Bro International.
Grit removal options include the horizontal flow grit channels, aerated grit chambers and
vortex flow chambers, each of which is described in turn below.
Horizontal flow grit channels

Horizontal flow grit channels may be rectangular or square in shape. Rectangular channels
are simpler but take up more space. A variation on the rectangular channel is the parabolic
channel, designed to maintain a constant flow velocity over a wide range of flows. This is
achieved by locating the parabolic channel upstream of a Venturi or Parshall flume,
designed which creates a standing wave and ensures that flow through the flume is always
sub-critical. The aim is to keep the flow through the channel close to 0.3 m/sec at all times.
Parabolic channels are very simple and have no moving parts and may be the most
appropriate form of grit removal for smaller wastewater treatment works in Pakistan.
However, they will cease to function unless operators regularly remove grit. Manual removal
Chapter 2
will be appropriate for smaller works but some form of mechanical removal, using scrapers,
buckets or grit pumps18, will be required for larger flows.
Square horizontal flow grit chambers are rather more sophisticated. The flow is distributed
across the width of the tank by a series of vanes or gates. Solids are removed to a sump at
the side of the tank by a rotating raking mechanism, from which they are removed by an
inclined reciprocating rake mechanism, which lifts the grit against a stream of water that
washes any organic material that has settled with the grit back into the settlement basin.
Aerated grit chambers
The principle of aerated grit chambers is that air is introduced along one side of a
rectangular tank to create a spiral flow pattern, which allows heavier grit particles with higher
settling velocities to settle to the bottom of the tank while lighter, mainly organic, particles
remain in suspension. The system is dependent on accurate control of the amount of air
introduced and hence the amount of agitation produced. Once settled, grit has to be
removed. For the larger works for which aerated separation is mainly used, this can be done
by grab buckets travelling on monorails over the grit storage trough. Other options include
chain and bucket conveyors, running the length of storage troughs, screw conveyors, tubular
conveyors and air lift pumps.
Vortex type grit chambers
Vortex chambers use a vortex flow pattern which produces centrifugal forces that push
solids to the sides of the chamber, where they settle to a central trough from which they can
be removed using an air-lift pump. The vortex flow may be either mechanically induced or
generated by the flow of the water as it enters tangentially at the top of the chamber. The
second mechanism has the advantage that no mechanical components other than the grit
pump are required. The head loss across non-mechanical vortex chambers used for grit
removal is typically in the range 100 – 300mm. Manufacturers claim that they can remove
particles down to around 150 microns19 in diameter. Mechanical units, a well known
example of which is the pista grit removal system have smaller head losses, typically less
than 100mm. The pista system, which has been used in a number of locations in China, can
be supplied in units with capacities from 1900 to 378,000 cubic metres per day (2.2 to 437
litres/second).
Maintenance issues
Observation of sewage treatment works in Haryana and Madhya Pradesh in India suggests
that maintenance of grit removal facilities can be a problem. In Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, a
simple grit channels had not been cleaned and a build-up of grit was clearly visible. In some
works in Haryana, the grit removal mechanism on some square horizontal flow grit chambers
was not working. Another factor observed in Haryana, which may also be found in Pakistan
18
Grit pumps suck from the invert of the grit channel via flexible hoses that allow the pump to be
moved over any excessive build‐up of detritus.
19
A micron is a thousandth of a millimetre.
Chapter 2
is that the amount of grit entering the works appeared to be quite low, presumably because
of settlement in surcharged main sewers20.
2.3 Flow equalisation
Wastewater treatment processes work best when the flow into them remains fairly constant
over time. Treatment processes that have a short retention time or are reliant on maintaining
a near-constant velocity are particularly vulnerable to excessive variations in flow.
Unfortunately, the flow in sewers can vary considerably, particularly as in most Punjab
towns, where storm flows can enter sewers.
Flow equalisation may be used to reduce flow fluctuations and hence improve the
performance of downstream processes. In essenc e, it involves the provision of a basin or
basins to collect excessive flows and store them before controlled release to treatment over
a longer time period. Storage is normall y provided downstream of screens and grit
chambers and may be provided either in-line or off-line. Metcalf and Eddy note that the
former achieves greater equalisation of flows than the latter but requires more pumping
capacity when the main flow has to be pumped before treatment. The practice in the USA
is to provide storage equivalent to 20 – 40% of the 24 hour inflow for smaller plants and 10 –
20% of that figure for larger plants but these percentages only deal with typical diurnal flow
variations. More storage may be required to deal with larger flow variations arising from
storm flows into the sewer system.
A key issue for all flow equalisation facilities, but particularly for on-line facilities will be
dealing with the sludge that must inevitably accumulate. One point to note here is that
standard practice in Pakistan is to provide large wet wells to pumping stations, on the basis
that the storage provided allows for some on-line balancing of flows. In practice, the
tendency to operate pumping stations with a high water level greatly reduces available
storage. Regardless of this, the provision of large wells with little or no benching inevitably
leads to sludge accumulation, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Wet well arrangement without benching
20
It is common in India, as in Pakistan, for operators to run pumping stations with the wet well water level
above the soffit level of the incoming sewer. This is done to save electricity costs and perhaps to reduce the
suction head on pumps located at ground level. However, it results in low flow velocities which will
inevitably lead to settlement of grit.
Chapter 2
Figure 5 Wet well arrangement with benching
3. Primary treatment processes

This section describes primary treatment processes, starting with relatively simple processes
that might be suitable for use at the village or neighbourhood level and moving on to those
that can be applied at the municipal level. The simple options can be used as stand alone
technologies but primary treatment processes will not consistently meet EPA discharge
standards and must therefore normally be followed by some form of secondary treatment.
The first technologies described, including septic tanks, anaerobic ponds, baffled reactors,
anaerobic filters and UASBs, are anaerobic in the sense that, in addition to physical
sedimentation processes, they rely to a greater or lesser extent on the activity of bacteria
that feed on waste materials in the absence of air. Some of these can be described as
providing ‘enhanced primary treatment’ in that they have potential to perform better than
technologies that rely mainly on physical sedimentation processes.
3.1 Septic tanks
Septic tanks provide a simple form of primary treatment, They operate as horizontal flow
settling tanks but the long retention of solids in the tank means that anaerobic break-down of
settled solids (digestion) also takes place in the tank.
Septic tanks are only appropriate for use on a small scale, normally that of the individual
household, a relatively small group of houses (typically up to about 100) or an institutional
building. To provide effective treatment, a septic tank needs to be emptied at regular
intervals, typically every 2 to 5 years. In theory, the effluent from a septic tank should be
discharged to a soakaway or drain field but the almost universal practice in Pakistan is to
discharge septic tank effluent to an open drain or nullah.
3.2 Anaerobic waste stabilisation ponds
Anaerobic waste stabilisation ponds provide arguably the simplest form of primary treatment
for use at the town level. An anaerobic pond is nothing more than an open basin, typically 3
– 5 metres deep, into which wastewater is discharged at one end and from which treated
effluent is delivered at the other end. Normal practice is to construct ponds about 4 metres
Chapter 2
deep and to allow up to 2 days retention21. If operated at the correct loading, the pond
should develop a thick surface crust and the absence of this crust may indicate that the pond
is underloaded Ponds are normally provided with sloping sides, typically at a gradient of 1:2.
Anaerobic ponds do smell and so they should be located some distance from habitation.
Arthur suggests a minimum distance of 1 km from the nearest house but it may sometimes
be necessary to accept less separation - 500metres is a reasonable design figure. A system
designed for Kohat in NWFP helped to provide the required separation from houses by siting
anaerobic ponds towards the centre of the available site rather than at the boundary closest
to the houses, where the incoming sewer entered the site.
Anaerobic ponds are simple to operate and require little routine maintenance. The one big
maintenance task is the removal of accumulated sludge, which will normally be required
every 3 – 5 years. Failure to carry out this task may lead to failure of the treatment22.
3.3 ‘Enhanced’ primary treatment
3.3.1 Small-scale options

This category includes a number of technologies that improve on the basic septic tank
design. The oldest of these technologies is the Imhoff tank but this is relatively expensive
and is now rarely used. Other technologies su itable for the treatment of fairly small flows
(typically up to about 50m3/day) include anaerobic upward flow filters and baffled reactors.
Both consist of a first compartment, essentially the same as the first compartment in a septic
tank, followed by a series of chambers through which the sewage flows in an upwards
direction. In an anaerobic filter, as its name suggests, these chambers are filled with a
suitable filter medium. The principle of a baffled reactor is that wastewater has to pass
through the settled material at the bottom of each chamber and that this acts in a similar way
to the sludge blanket in an Upward Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor, filtering
out solids and setting up anaerobic treatment processes. The German NGO Borda has used
both anaerobic upward flow filters and, more commonly, baffled reactors, to treat wastes
from communal toilets and institutions such as hospitals in India and Indonesia, with
reported success.
Laboratory and pilot-scale field tests at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Bangkok
have shown that anaerobic upward flow filters and baffled reactors can remove around 80%
of the wastewater organic load. This level of performance will normally result in an effluent
quality approximating to that required by current EPA standards. However, it will probably
be more realistic to assume removal efficiencies of the order of 60% in field conditions in the
relatively low winter temperatures in Punjab.
21
Equations for design of anaerobic WSPs to be provide in a footnote
22
There is evidence to this effect from India, Central America among others
Chapter 2
Anaerobic filter may be
provided in last compartment
Scum layer to improve performance
First compartment functions

like first compartment of septic
tank
Settled sludge
Flow passing through settled sludge has effect similar

to UASB
Figure 6 - Baffled reactor typical layout
3.3.2 Upward flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors

UASBs represent a rather more sophisticated form of enhanced primary treatment, which
can and has been used at the municipal scale. India now has good experience with the
technology. The first UASB in India was a pilot 5mld plant in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh,
commissioned in the late 1980s. This was followed by a 14mld plant in Mirzapur, also in
Uttar Pradesh, commissioned in 1995. Both were constructed under the Ganga Action Plan
(GAP) programme with Dutch aid and using Dutch expertise and technology. Subsequently,
a number of UASB plants have been built under the Indian Government’s Yamuna Action
Plan, with capacities varying from 10mld to 50mld capacity. UASBs have also been built in
Maharashtra and in some other Indian states.
Figure 7 - UASB layout as used in Indian reactors
Chapter 2
Most, if not all, of the YAP plants incorporate secondary treatment in a “polishing” pond,
similar in appearance to a facultative waste stabilisation pond with baffles to lengthen the
flow path, but depending on rather different processes because the design retention is only 1
day. UASBs in Maharashtra are followed by aerated lagoons. The hydraulic retention time
of all the YAP UASB reactors lies in the range 8.4 hours to 10.9 hours with the majority of
plants designed on the basis of the former figure. The design hydraulic retention in the
polishing ponds is normally 1 day and it is probable that the loading is too great for the
ponds to function as true facultative ponds.
Two papers provide good information on the performance of the plants, one an evaluation by
India’s Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) 23 and the Second a paper by researchers at
the Department of Environmental Systems Engineering at the Nagaoka University of
Technology in Japan 24, which focuses only on the YAP plants. They suggest that, to date,
experience with UASBs in India has been mixed. The anaerobic process produces corrosive
gases and the original plants in Kanpur and Mirzapur are reported to have suffered from
corrosion problems. It seems that these problems were overcome in the next generation of
plants by appropriate choice of materials and providing protective coatings to materials such
as mild steel that tend to corrode. All of the plants are functioning but none appear to be
achieving the 85 – 90% BOD5 removal that is theoretically possible. The CPCB evaluation
found three of the YAP UASBs to be satisfactory while around eight were classed as poor.
The original Kanpur plant was classed as poor and a later combined effluent plant, treating
municipal and tannery wastes, was classed as very poor. The Maharashtra plants appeared
to be working rather better, with both those reviewed classed as satisfactory. The paper by
the Japanese researchers provides information on influent and effluent quality for each of
the YAP works. It shows that average BOD reduction across all the samples of all the works
was around 50% from 258mg/l to 130mg/l. Average COD reduction was slightly less,
averaging about 46.5%. Suspended solids (SS) reduction was limited, averaging only
around 7% from 410mg/l to 380mg/l25. These figures compare with design reductions of 65
– 70% for BOD and 75 – 80% for total suspended solids26. The paper recommended more
stringent attention to sludge management as the best option for enhancing UASB
performance. Secondary treatment might be impr oved by installing aerators or increasing
the retention time although it is hard to see how the latter could be achieved within the
confines of existing WWTP sites.
A possible reason for the relatively poor performance of UASBs in India is a build-up of
suspended solids in the reactor. Indian guidelines require that a profile of the sludge in the
UASB reactor is made every month and that this should be used as the basis for determining
how much sludge should be removed from the reactor and at what time interval. Studies in
2005 found that sludge profiles were not being made and that excess sludge was not being
23
This report is available on the internet at http://www.cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_99_5.pdf .
(Accessed 18th October 2008)
24
See Sato N, Okubo T, Onodera T, Ohashi A and Harada H (2006) Prospects for a self‐sustainable sewage
treatment system: A case study on full‐scale UASB systems in India’s Yamuna River Basin, Journal of
Environmental Management, 80, New York, Elsevier pp 198 ‐ 207
25
It should be noted that Khalil et al (2008) give better performance figures, particularly for TSS, which they
suggest is typically reduced by a factor of around 70% in the reactors themselves.
26
Figures quoted in Khalil et al 2008.
Chapter 2
removed from the UASB reactors investigated. The study also found a need to remove
scum that was accumulating at the top of the UASB reactors along with excess sludge27.
However, there appeared to be no sign of scum at the surface of the Karnal and other
reactors during site visits in the course of the Scoping Study inception visit. This may have
been a consequence of low wastewater strength, resulting in underloading of the reactor.
The performance of UASBs in Northern Indian and also Punjab conditions may be affected
by the relatively low winter temperatures. A report on treatment options in Palestinian
conditions28, with winter temperatures falling below 15oC, as in Punjab, led to the conclusion
that conventional UASBs need to be designed with a hydraulic retention time approaching
one day if methanogenic conditions were to be achieved in all seasons. This retention time
is between two and thee times that provided in the Indian UASBs and will make it difficult to
maintain an acceptable hydraulic flow rate through the reactor. To overcome this problem, a
UASB reactor was amended to incorporate a parallel digester unit to provide enhanced
sludge stabilisation and generate active methanogenic sludge to be recirculated to the UASB
reactor. The reactor was operated in this mode for a period of 83 days with the digester unit
kept at a temperature of 35oC and achieved removal efficiencies of total, suspended,
colloidal and dissolved CODs of 66%, 87%, 44% and 30% respectively.
Another point to note is that entrapped sludge is likely to be completely mineralised at

temperatures higher than about 20oC, resulting in low sludge production. At lower winter
temperatures, bacterial activity will decrease and sludge will accumulate. It may be that this
has contributed to the apparent carry over of sludge from the Indian UASBs. The design of
reactors in Punjab should include a sludge draw-off pipe. The design for a UASB installation
in Palestine proposed that the draw-off pipe should extend about 1 metre above the floor of
the reactor29.
One potentially important aspect of the Indian designs is their modular approach, with the
number of standard UASB reactors matched to the design flow. Each reactor is independent
of every other reactor so that it can be shut down for maintenance without affecting the
performance of the other reactors30.
UASBs, and indeed about all types of enhanced primary treatment depending on anaerobic
processes, require an extended start-up period and so do not produce a good standard of
effluent immediately. They operate best at high loadings. One reason for the relatively poor
performance of UASBs in India is the low sewage strength, with the average BOD5 rarely
exceeding 200mg/l. However, the possibility t hat the poor performance is also attributable,
27
See Sato et al (2006)
28
Nidal, M, Zeerman G and van Liew J B (2008) Adapting High Rate Anaerobic Treatment to Middle East
Conditions, in Al Baz I, Otterpohl R and Wendland C (eds) Efficient Management of Wastewater: Its
Treatment and Reuse in Water‐scarce Countries, New York, Springer
29
Unpublished report by Palestine Hydrology Group – UASB recommendations provided by Joost van Buuren
of Wageningen University
30
For further information see Khalil N, Sinha R, Raghav A and Mittal A (2008), UASB technology for sewage
treatment in India: Experience, economic evaluation and its potential in other developing countries, paper
presented at Twelfth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC12 2008, Alexandria, Egypt,
Downloaded from http://www.iwtc.info/2008_pdf/15 ‐3.PDF on 18th October 2008
Chapter 2
at least in part, to the relatively low temperatures experienced in northern India requires
further investigation.
3.3.3 Sedimentation tanks
Unlike the technologies described above, sedimentation tanks, do not rely on anaerobic
processes. The simplest form of sedimentation tanks are hopper bottomed tanks. These
have no moving parts but are only suitable for use on a small scale and will not be
appropriate for use in towns and cities in Punjab. Figure 8 shows the standard layout for a
hopper bottomed tank.
Effluent channel
Scum board
Figure 8 Hopper bottomed sedimentation tank
Sedimentation tanks to deal with larger flows can be either rectangular or circular in plan.
Flow enters horizontal tanks at one end and leaves it at the other end. Material that settles
out in the tank can be scraped back to a transverse trough at the inlet end of the tank, by
scrapers attached to a pair of endless conveyor chains. From here it is moved to a hopper
at the side of the tank by a chain operated or screw-type collection mechanism.
Alternatively, desludging of the tank bottom may be carried out by one or more scrapers
suspended from a bridge mechanism that travels up and down the tank on wheels that run
on rails supported by the side walls of the tank.
The flow pattern in circular tanks is radial, from a central circular plan ‘feed well’ to a weir
running all the way around the wall of the tank. (See Figure 9). A scraper is attached to a
rotating bridge driven by a small motor and spanning between the centre of the tank and the
tank wall.
Chapter 2
channel
Outlet
Scum
board
Inlet
w
Flo
Figure 9 Radial flow sedimentation tank
Bridge and scraper mechanism not shown
Rectangular tanks make better use of available space than circular tanks but their
operational mechanisms are correspondingly more complex and hence more susceptible to
breakdown. Circular tanks are likely to be the preferred option for medium sized
conventional works in Punjab although there may eventually be a case for considering the
use of horizontal tanks for large treatment works in cities like Lahore and Faisalabad.
One option for increasing the capacity of conventional sedimentation tanks is to fit them with
inclining plate or tube settlers. These consist of multiple tubes or plates, located within the
tank and typically set at an angle of about 60o to the horizontal. They work by providing an
increased settlement area while at the same time greatly reducing the depth through which
particles have to fall before reaching a hard surface. Once solids have settled on the face of
the tube or plate, they slide downwards by gravity and are deposited on the floor of the tank.
Researchers experimented with inclined plate settlers in secondary sedimentation tanks

receiving flows from a high-rate activated sludge aeration tank at the Al-Awir sewage
treatment works in Dubai, comparing the results with and without the settlers. They obtained
slightly better results with than without plate settlers at design flows but found that the plate
settlers performed significantly better at peak flows. Their research suggested that tanks
fitted with plate settlers are less likely to be affected by overloading than conventional
tanks31.
3.3.4 Chemically enhanced primary treatment
Chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) relies on the addition of small doses
(normally less than 50mg/l) of metal salts to wastewater prior to settling in order to induce
coagulation and hence enhance the settling process. Its advocates claim that it is the lowest
cost technology allowing effective disinfection of effluent. They suggest that conventional
plants are often ‘token’, treating a small proportion of the total wastewater flow and often
performing badly because of funding shortages, a particularly important consideration for
31
See Saleh A and Hamoda M (undated) Upgrading of secondary clarifiers by inclined plate settlers, see
http://publications.ksu.edu.sa/Conferences/Wastewater%20management%20for%20a%20Better%20Environ
ment%20Abu%20Dhabi%20UAE%202000/Abdulsalam%20Saleh.pdf, accessed 4.12.2008
Chapter 2
systems such as activated sludge that rely on power-assisted aeration. From this point of
view, the argument for CEPT systems is similar to that for anaerobic technologies such as
UASBs. Proponents of CEPT systems also claim that they are effective in reducing the
concentration of pathogens, particularly helminth eggs, the most dangerous pathogen when
wastewater is used for irrigation, to levels of between 2 and 5 eggs per litre32. This is better
than the performance for UASBs reported from Brazil, where research showed that a UASB
with a retention time of five hours can produce effluent concentrations of 1.3 – 45 eggs per
litre, with an average of 16 eggs per litre, for an influent containing 64 – 320 eggs per litre33.
However, it is above the old WHO standard of 1 egg per litre and the recommended revised
standard of not more than 0.1 eggs per litre for both unrestricted irrigation and restricted
irrigation where children under the age of 15 might come into contact with crops. It should
be noted that the effluent helminth egg concentration is influenced by the concentration of
eggs in the influent. Chavez et al found that it was possible to achieve effluent helminth egg
concentrations in the range 0.5 – 3 eggs per litre for influent concentrations in the range 20 –
100 eggs per litre using ‘advanced primary treatment’ (APT) methods 34, which combine
CEPT with the use of tube or plate settlers.
CEPT is not a new concept. It was first developed in the late 19 th and early 20th centuries,
with lime added at dosages as high as 1000mg/l as to assist the coagulation. The approach
was abandoned because it produced large volumes of sludge and, on its own, could not
meet the stricter effluent standards that were being introduced. In recent years, it has
attracted renewed interest, partly because improvements in understanding of chemical
processes, particularly of the role of polymers to aid coagulation, mean that it is now
possible to work with lower work with doses of coagulants. Typical dosage rates for ferric
chloride, the most commonly used coagulation agent, are in the range 40 – 50 mg/l. CEPT
has been used in a number of cities, including Hong Kong, Montreal, Los Angeles and Rio
de Janeiro35. In Los Angeles, CEPT was used to enhance the capacity of existing facilities.
The system in Hong Kong was commissioned in 2001 and involves CEPT followed by
disinfection using UV radiation before the treated sewage is discharged to sea. In Rio de
Janeiro as in Hong Kong, CEPT has been used to treat an effluent to be discharged to sea.
One of the advantages of the system when treatment is required on a sea or river front,
where land availability is limited, is the relatively low footprint of the CEPT plant. It may be
that this will be an advantage in some Punjab towns where the preferred location for sewage
treatment is adjacent to a river.
32
Harleman D, Murcott S and Chagnon, F (Undated) Appropriate Wastewater Treatment in Developing
Countries, Experiences with CEPT, Downloaded from
http://www.cd3wd.com/CD 3WD_40/ASDB_SMARTSAN/DRFH_Experiences.pdf ‐ 4th December 2008
33
Von Sperling, C.A.L., Chernicharo, A.M.E. and Zerbini, A.M. (2002). Coliform and helminth eggs removal in a
combined UASB reactor – baffled pond system in Brazil: performance evaluation and mathematical
modelling. Water Sci. Technol., 45(10), 237–242.
34
Chavez, A., Jimenez, B. and Maya, C. (2004). Particle size distribution as a useful tool for microbial detection.
Water Sci. Technol., 50(2), 179–186.
35
See Sandino J (2004) Chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) and its applicability for large
wastewater treatment plants, Water Intelligence Online, IWA Publishing. Available at
http://www.iwaponline.com/wio/2004/08/wio200408018.htm . Accessed 14th December 2008.
Chapter 2
4. ‘Extensive’ secondary treatment processes

The term ‘extensive’ is used here to describe aerobic (or mixed aerobic and anaerobic)
treatment systems that operate without electricity and rely on ‘natural’ treatment processes 36.
These processes fall into two categories:
1. Fixed film cultures on small media. Vertic al and horizontal flow reed beds (constructed
wetlands) and sand filters fall into this category. The latter are not suitable for treating
raw sewage but might be suitable for tertiary treatment or for treating sullage.
2. Suspended growth cultures, which use solar energy to produce oxygen by
photosynthesis. Lagoons and waste stabilisation ponds rely on this mechanism, together
with sedimentation.
The main advantages of extensive systems are that they are simple and so relatively easy to
maintain, do not require energy unless sewage has to be pumped and are better than other
sewage treatment options at removing pathogens. The performance of pond systems is
particularly good in this respect. They do not perform as well as mainstream treatment
options such as activated sludge in removing BOD and suspended solids but this may
actually be an advantage if wastewater is being used for irrigation. Their main disadvantage
is that they require a large land area.
4.1 Waste stabilisation ponds
Extensive waste stabilisation ponds may be either facultative ponds or maturation ponds.
The main purpose of facultative ponds is to remove BOD. The lower layers normally
become anaerobic at times but must be aerobic at the surface as they rely mainly on algae
to remove organic material. They are typically 1.5 to 1.8 metres deep.
Maturation ponds are purely aerobic and their main function is to reduce pathogen
concentrations to levels that are considered suitable for agricultural or aquacultural reuse.
They are normally 1.2 to 1.5 metres deep.
Facultative and maturation ponds are normally used together, often in conjunction with
anaerobic ponds, which reduce the load on subsequent ponds and hence the land
requirement.
WSPs and constructed wetlands can be used to produce good quality effluents but have a
high land take. Calculations based on an assumed BOD 5 load of 50gm/person, 120 litres
per person per day and the minimum average temperature in Lahore over the coldest 3
months of the year (14.2oC) suggest that the land required for a full WSP system is likely to
be of the following order
• Anaerobic pond 0.1 m 2/person
36
For further information on extensive treatment processes, see
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water ‐urbanwaste/waterguide_en.pdf. This is intended for
European conditions so its estimates of land requirements are rather higher than would normally be the case
for facilities in tropical and sub‐tropical countries.
Chapter 2
• Facultative pond 1.25 m2/person
• Maturation pond 0.63 – 1.25 m2/person
The maturation pond area depends on the pathogen removal performance required. The
figures given above are typical and the actual area of pond area provided will often depend
on land availability.
These figures give a total of up to about 2.6 m2/person, requiring total land areas of 5.2 ha
hectares, 13 hectares and 26 hectares for populations of 20,000, 50,000 and 100,000
respectively.
4.2 Constructed wetlands
Constructed wetlands can also be subdivided into three basic categories:

• Vertical flow systems
• Free-surface flow horizontal flow systems in which the flow is mainly above ground.
• Sub-surface flow horizontal flow systems.
To date, most of the systems implemented in developing countries with hot climates have
been of the horizontal sub-surface flow type.
Land requirements for constructed wetland systems are high but perhaps slightly less than
those of WSP systems. On the basis of pilot scale experiments, a land requirement of 1 –
2m2/person has been estimated for Iran, in climatic conditions that can be expected to be
similar to those for Pakistan37. Guidelines for India suggest that horizontal flow systems with
sub-surface flow, the type normally found in South Asia, can be designed for loadings up to
30gm per square metre per day, which would require around 1.67m2 per person for the bed
itself, perhaps 2m2 per person in total.
Vertical flow systems require rather less land. A typical requirement in temperate climates is
1m2 per person and it should be possible to reduce this perhaps 0.5m2 per person for
Punjab’s climate.
The long retention period of constructed wetlands means that, like WSPs, they should be
better than other treatment technologies at removing pathogens. However, relatively little
information is available on actual removal performance. Jiminez reports 90 – 98% removal
of thermo-tolerant coliforms and 60 – 100% of protozoa but suggests that to ensure 100%
helminth egg removal, wetlands must be followed by a horizontal flow gravel bed38.
Constructed wetlands also have some capacity to deal with variations in flow, although large
37
A figure as low as 0.66 m2/person was obtained from detailed studies in Egypt. A summary of the
research findings available at http://www.dfid-kar-water.net/projects/files/R4573.html suggests that
organic load removal was only of the order of 50% when the constructed wetland followed an
‘oxidation pond’, which presumably means a facultative waste stabilisation pond. Constructed
wetlands work best when they treat effluent that has already received primary treatment by some
other method.
38
Jiminez, B (2007) Helminth ova removal form wastewater for agriculture and aquaculture use,
Water, Science and Technology, 55, 1 -2, pp485 – 493, London, IWA Publishing
Chapter 2
variations in flow are likely to result in some overland flow, even in nominally sub-surface
flow systems. The effort required for maintenance is likely to be similar to that for WSPs and
rather less than that for other forms of treatment.
4.3 ‘Intensive’ aerobic secondary treatment processes
All ‘conventional’ intensive secondary treatment processes rely on aerobic bacteria, which
feed upon waste products and reduce them to less harmful products in the presence of
oxygen. These processes take place in the natural environment but without help from plant
designers are quickly superseded by anaerobic processes as the capacity of the
environment to provide oxygen is exceeded. T hus, the objective of all forms of intensive
aerobic treatment is to allow sewage to come into contact with more air than would be the
possible under unaided natural conditions.
Intensive processes can be divided into two broad categories:

• Attached growth processes, including trickling filters and rotating biological contactors
(RBCs).
• Suspended growth processes, including activated sludge, extended aeration and their
variants.
Some processes use both attached growth and suspended growth processes. Examples
include the so called Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) systems recently implemented in
Egypt and the fluidized aerated bed or moving bed biological reactor systems that have been
used in India.
Various intensive secondary treatment processes are introduced in the sub-sections that
follow:
4.3.1 Trickling filters

Trickling or percolating filters are the oldest established form of aerobic treatment. In
essence, they consist of circular or rectangular beds, typically about 1.8 metres deep,
supported by side walls and filled with broken stone or clinker. The broken stone is of a
fairly uniform size, typically 40 – 50mm across, providing air spaces in the interstices
between the stones. The term ‘filter’ is misleading because the main treatment mechanism
is biological, taking place in a film of bacteria and other organisms that forms on the surface
of the filter media. The maximum hydraulic loading on the filter is normally taken to be about
4m3/m2.d Assuming that this is the hydraulic loading at 2.5dwf, this is equivalent to about
0.063m2 per person for a sewage flow of 100l/cd and about 0.125m2 per person for a
sewage flow of 200l/cd. The maximum BOD loading rate should not exceed about 0.22kg
BOD/m3/d39. Assuming a BOD load of 50gm/cd, that the bed depth is 1.8 metres and that
30% of the BOD loading has already been removed by primary settlement, this translates
into a required bed area of about 0.09m2/person. This suggests that the biological loading
will normally be more critical than hydraulic loading unless the works includes flow
39
Figure suggested by Metcalf and Eddy although Mara suggests a lower figure of 0.1 kg BOD/m3/d for single
pass filters.
Chapter 2
recirculation. Note that the per-person areas are for the filters themselves. Additional
allowance must be made for primary settlement and for secondary settlement of solids that
are sloughed off from the filter media as the surface film thickness grows and the velocity of
flow through the filter increases. The total area required for a conventional filter bed works in
temperate conditions is likely to be of the order of 0.4m2 per person equivalent, rather more
than the area required for activated sludge40. Khalil et al give a figure of 1.62m 2 per cubic
metre flow for Indian conditions, which translates to 0.175m2 per person, assuming that
sewage flow is 80% of 135 l/cd. This figure appears to be a little on the low side.
Conventional single pass filters can achieve 90 – 90% BOD removal when well operated and
are likely to produce a well nitrified effluent. Metcalf and Eddy suggest that their power
consumption may be in the range 2 – 4 kW/per 1000 cubic metres although it is not clear
where this power is used, perhaps in pumping and recirculation since a simple filter
operating under gravity does not require power.
Most of these figures relate to trickling filter plants in temperate climates. As with other
treatment technologies, performance improves with temperature while area required per
population equivalent decreases with increasing flow.
Conventional filters have been used in South Asia and other parts of the developing world.
In most cases, they are no longer considered as a possible technology, partly because of
they require more land than activated sludge and partly because of operational problems.
Filters with fairly low hydraulic loading rates tend to suffer from problems with filter flies and
some commentators suggest that this problem is worse in tropical conditions. Another
consideration with simple filters is that odours may be a problem if the wastewater is stale or
septic, which will often be the case in Punjab conditions.
One point that emerges from the outline analysis above is that the biological loading on a
filter is more critical than the hydraulic loading. This suggests that increasing the percentage
of the biological load that can be removed during primary treatment will lead to more cost
effective use of trickling filters. For inst ance, replacing conventional settling tanks with
UASBs or some other form of anaerobic treatment may well allow optimum use to be made
of trickling filters. This approach has been used for the Nahtay WWTP in Gharbeya, Egypt,
where enhanced primary treatment in UASB reactors is followed by secondary treatment in
two circular trickling filters. However, furt her research is needed to determine whether this
apparent advantage is counterbalanced by the fact that the effluent from the UASBs is
anaerobic.
4.3.2 Intermediate and high rate trickling filters

These filters may use either rock or plastic media. They are normally circular in shape.
Recirculation of the filter effluent or final effluent (normally the latter) allows higher loadings
on the filters. The higher flow rate resulting from recirculation allows better distribution over
the filter surface and reduces problems with odours and flies. There are many variations on
the basic recirculation concept but the key point is that the higher organic loading rates
40
Based on figure given by ex Severn Trent Authority engineer in workshop but will vary depending on size of
plant.
Chapter 2
resulting from recirculation mean that the area required is rather less than for low-rate filters.
Metcalf and Eddy suggest that the organic loading of intermediate rate filters can fall in the
range 0.24 – 0.48 kg BOD/m3.d while that for plastic high rate filters may reach as high as
3.2 kg BOD/m3.d. The BOD removal efficiency typically lies in the range 50 – 80% for
intermediate rate filters and 60 – 90% for high rate filters with plastic media.
4.3.3 Biological aerated filter (BAF)

Biological aerated filters (BAFs), also known as Submerged aerated filters (SAFs) use
attached growth processes similar to those used by conventional trickling filters. The
difference is that additional air is introduced to enhance the treatment process. The filter
bed is typically 2 – 3 metres deep and uses a fairly small sized media. The bed is
submerged and primary-treated wastewater is passed through the filter, in either an upward
or a downward direction41. Diffusers located below the filter bed provide the flow of air.
Biomass builds up in the filter over time, blocking the filter pathways and reducing the filter
capacity. The accumulated biomass is removed by periodic backwashing, air scouring or a
combination of the two. The backwash water is held in a holding tank or well and returned to
the head of the treatment process so that solids can be settled at the primary treatment
stage.
Experimental results from a pilot scale BAF in Brazil, following UASB treatment, revealed
BOD5 reduction of 72% for an organic loading of 1.2kg BOD5/m3.d, around five times the
loading for a conventional filter bed. The effluent produced had an average BOD 5 of less
than 10mg/l. The studies revealed that the combined UASB and BAF technology produced
consistency in SS and organic material removal with the BAF compensating for periods
when the UASB performed less well for any reason.
The low effluent concentration is one of the advantages of BAFs. Other advantages include
their compactness and the fact that they can be constructed in modular fashion, biomass
stability, relatively low energy costs in comparison with activated sludge and the reliability of
the process. Disadvantages include dependency on energy and the fact that the treatment
process is rather more complex than that for conventional trickling filters although arguably
no more so than activated sludge processes.
4.3.4 Rotating biological contactors

Rotating biological contactors provide a relatively simple form of treatment. Like trickling
filters, they use attached growth mechanisms, with biologically active material forming on the
faces of the slowly rotating disks that provide the basis of the treatment. They are normally
used for relatively small works treating flows up to the equivalent of about 1500 persons
equivalent. They have the advantage of simp licity, requiring only basic operator skills, and
a much lower power requirement than mechanically aerated systems. Nevertheless, they do
require a reliable power source. In Punjab, their small size means that they could only be
considered for use at the village or neighbourhood level. However, other simpler treatment
options that do not depend on power, perhaps anaerobic baffled reactors followed by ponds,
will normally be preferable.
41
Upward flow designs appear to be more common than downward flow designs
Chapter 2
4.3.5 Activated sludge
Activated sludge was first used in 1913 in Davyhulme WWTP in Manchester, UK. Since then
it has become the most commonly used form of treatment in developed countries and is also
the preferred form of treatment for many middle and even lower-income countries. For
instance, most WWTPs in the Middle East use either the activated sludge process or
developments of it. India has a number of activated sludge plants.
Activated sludge is a suspended growth process that brings together and aerates raw
wastewater and sludge returned from final settling tanks in a tank or series of tanks. The
mixture of wastewater and returned sludge is referred to as ‘mixed liquor’. Air is normally
supplied either by mechanically operated surface aerators or via diffuser holes located in
pipes running along the bottom of the tank, which are fed by air from a compressor. Excess
sludge leaves the tank together with the effluent and is then separated from the treated
wastewater in a clarifier. As already indicated, some of the sludge removed from the clarifier
is recycled to the reactor to provide the activated material required for the process.
The key to successful operation lies in controlling a number of parameters, including the
mixed liquor suspended solids, (MLSS), the food to microorganism ration (F/M), the sludge
volume index (SVI) and the sludge age, the average time that sludge remains within the
reactor tank. Operation therefore needs careful attention to these factors and this in turn
indicates a need for experienced operators. One of the questions to be asked when
considering the possible use of activated sludge technologies in Punjab towns and cities is
whether suitably experienced operators can be employed. The answer to this question will
depend partly on the availability of operators with the required skills, which in turn will
depend on the remuneration packages that can be offered and on the training that can be
provided.
Some activated sludge plants are preceded by settlement in clarifiers. However, the more
normal arrangement is to provide only preliminary treatment ahead of the activated sludge
reactors, with secondary clarifiers provided to settle solids carried over from the reactors.
Activated sludge reactors are normally designed to provide about 8 hours retention. Diffuser
systems are more efficient than surface aerators but are more prone to blockage. Based on
analysis of reactors in India, Khalil et al conclude that the land requirement for a activated
sludge plant is 1.82m2/m3 or perhaps 0.2m2/person. This appears to be of the right order
and can be used for preliminary comparison purposes.
One interesting variation on the basic activated sludge model is the so called rotating
biological contactor (RBC) system developed by a German company and implemented
under license by an Egyptian company in a number of village schemes in Gharbeya
Governorate in Egypt. The first of these, at the village of Fisha Selim, has a rated capacity
of about 3000 m3/d and has been operating for about three years. The technology is
described as an RBC since it does consist of a series of partly enclosed RBC-type discs,
linked together into a large water-wheel type structure, which is part in and part out of the
reactor. The system appears to operate partl y through attached growth mechanisms on the
surfaces of the discs but the discs pull air in with them when they are submerged, releasing
it near the bottom of their circular motion and carry water when they break the surface of the
wastewater, releasing it to fall back to the tank at the top of their motion. The result in both
Chapter 2
cases is a mixing of air and water and this presumably has a similar effect to the mixing
effect of mechanical aerators or the introduction of diffused air in a conventional activated
sludge plant. The operators claim that the Fisha Selim plant uses only about 29000kWh per
month, about half of the expected electricity consumption of a conventional activated sludge
plant. This claim needs to be independently verified but it certainly seems that this is a
promising technology.
Another feature of the Egyptian WWTPs is the provision of hopper-bottomed sedimentation

tanks around the sides of the main reactor. One wall of the tank is vertical and the other
slopes at an angle of 30o to the vertical to form the hopper bottom, rather like a conventional
hopper-bottomed tank cut in half. This arrangement is simple and makes very economical
use of land. Again its performance needs to be independently verified but it seems to be a
promising arrangement.
4.3.6 Extended aeration

Extended aeration is a form of activated sludge treatment but with a longer retention time (at
least 24 hours) and greater sludge age, typically 12 - 20 days as against 8 - 12 days for
conventional activated sludge plants. The most common form of extended aeration is the
oxidation ditch, which consists of a continuous, normally oval, channel through which
wastewater is moved by a mechanical device, which also aerates the flow. The aim is to
provide a horizontal velocity around the channel of about 0.3m/sec, sufficient to keep the
active sludge particles in suspension. The first oxidation ditch design was the pasveer ditch,
named after its inventor, which uses a horizontal brush rotor. The flow in a pasveer ditch is
typically 1 – 1.5 metres deep. Another common design is the carousel, which uses a
vertical aerator similar to those used for conventional activated sludge treatment. The flow
depth in a carousel unit is greater than that for a pasveer ditch, typically 2 metres or more.
Dissolved oxgyen levels are highest immediately after the rotor and decrease as the flow
passes around the channel. Excess liquid, together with suspended solids, is discharged to
a secondary clarifier, from which settled sludge is recirculated as required to keep the MLSS
at the required level (normally 3000 – 5000 mg/l).
The sludge produced by oxidation ditches is well mineralised and therefore relatively easy to
dewater although it should be noted that the water content of the sludge is fairly high when it
is first removed from the clarifier.
Mara suggests that the aeration requirement for oxidation ditch plants in India will normally
be in the range 1-5 – 2 kgO2 per kg of BOD5 applied. This compares with a figure of around
1 kgO2 per kg BOD supplied for conventional activated sludge, illustrating the point that
extended aeration requires more energy than conventional activated sludge. Mara’s figure
for the land requirement of an oxidation ditch system in India, 0.125m2 per person
equivalent, seems too low and the actual figure is more likely to be of the order of 0.3m2 per
person42.
42
Mara’s low land take figure is partly explained by the fact that he allows very little land for sludge drying,
presumably on the basis that drying conditions in a hot country will be much better than those in
temperate Europe
Chapter 2
The high power requirement and consequent high operating cost of oxidation ditch
technology is an obvious drawback to its use in developing countries such as Pakistan.
Reliance on power also creates a need for power back-up, to deal with power outages
resulting from load shedding, which are likely to be more frequent in the smaller towns that
would otherwise be most suitable for oxidation ditch technology. It is possible that variations
on the basic oxidation principle that operate on a similar basis to sequencing batch reactors
with the ditch being used first for aeration and then as a settling basin might provide a partial
solution to the load shedding problem. However, overall, given their higher power and land
requirements than conventional activated sludge, there seems to be little advantage in
pursuing the oxidation ditch option in Pakistan at present.
In recent years, Chinese researchers have investigated some modifications to the basic
oxidation ditch technology but a quick review of the literature suggests that most of these
modifications have been implemented only at a pilot scale and have yet to be proved under
field conditions. The CPCB report on sewage treatment in India revealed no examples of
the use of oxidation ditches.
4.3.7 Sequenced batch reactors

The sequenced batch reactor (SBR) is in essence an activated sludge technology in which
the various stages take place in time rather than space. All SBR systems incorporate five
steps, carried out in sequence. These are fill, react (aeration), settle (sedimentation), draw
(decant) and idle. The power requirement is si milar to that for activated sludge plants, the
main advantages of SBRs lying in their small land take and the possibility of reducing capital
costs because clarifiers are not required. Another potential advantage is their flexibility. For
instance, it is possible to modify the various cycles that make up the system to allow for
nutrient removal in the future. The US EPA suggest that SBRs are normally used at flow
rates of 5mgd (22.7mld) and less. The reason for this relates to the main disadvantage of
SBRs, their requirement for sophisticated timing units and controls, something that becomes
particularly problematic for larger works. Sophisticated equipment, of course, implies a need
for higher levels of maintenance, which will be a problem for most small and medium-sized
towns in Pakistan. With good operation, SBRs can produce rather better effluent quality
than activated sludge with typical effuent BOD5 and SS concentrations of 10mg/l.
EPA note that the holding time in an SBR can be modified to allow it to simulate anything
from a contact stabilization system, with a retention of 3.5 to 7 hours, to an extended
aeration system with a retention time of 18 – 36 hours. Initial investigations suggest that the
power requirement of SBRs will be similar to that of conventional activated sludge plants.
Some Indian water utilities are exploring the possibilities presented by SBRs. For instance
the Haryana Water Supply and Sewerage Department (WSSD), the equivalent to the PHED
in Punjab, is currently tendering for the design, construction and operation of an SBR plant
to serve part of the town of Amballa.
At first sight, it does not appear that SBRs offer a particularly appropriate technology option
for use in Pakistan. Given the difficulties in providing instrumentation for larger plants, it
appears that their main use would be for small to medium sized towns with populations up to
perhaps 200,000. However, these are precisely the locations in which lack of skilled
Chapter 2
operators and a reliable power supply may militate against their use. For the moment, it
would appear that other technologies offer better options. The only exception to this might be
if a plant was built, operated and maintained by the same organisation, with the maintenance
contract running for a period of at least 10 years and preferably longer.
4.3.8 Fluidized bed reactors (Moving bed biological reactors)

Fluidized bed reactors have been used in some recently commissioned WWTPs in India,
where they are known as moving bed biological reactors. Like SBRs, they are claimed to
have a lower footprint than conventional activate sludge plants. Reactors may be
rectangular or circular in plan. Wastewater is introduced near the bottom of the reactor and
passes out over a weir at the top of the reactor. Treatment is by a combination of attached
and suspended growth mechanisms. Attached growth activity takes place on small plastic
objects, (typically around 25mm in diameter) which are designed to have a high surface area
so as to maximise the area available for attached growth processes. The density of the
plastic objects is greater than that of water but they are lifted into suspension by air that is
introduced through diffuser pipes at the bottom of the reactor. This air supports suspended
growth processes in a similar way to that achieved by conventional activated sludge reactors
with diffusers rather than surface aerators.
MBBRs can achieve a higher effluent quality than conventional activated sludge, achieving
BOD5 and SS levels of less than 10mg/l if operated effectively. However, they appear to
offer little if any power saving as compared with activated sludge. They are currently being
used for plants in Haryana, India but more time is required to assess their performance
under Indian operating conditions. Their relatively high cost and reliance on energy mean
that they are unlikely to be a preferred technology for Pakistan in the immediate future.
4.3.9 Aerated lagoons

Aerated lagoons are basins, typically 2 – 5 metres in depth in which oxygen is supplied
mainly by mechanically induced aeration rather than algal photosynthesis. Aeration options
are the same as those for activated sludge, normally surface aerators located on floating or
fixed platforms although the Hayatabad plant in Peshawar used diffused bubble aerators.
Most aerated lagoons are operated on a ‘flow-through’ basis with no sludge recycling 43.
Aerated lagoons are operated at much lower MLSS levels than activated sludge plants,
typically 200 – 500mg/l, depending on the type of lagoon, rather than the 2000 - 6000mg/l
range normally used for activated sludge processes. Commentators suggest that BOD 5
removal can be as high as 90% although this level of removal will depend on effective
operation and maintenance.
The simplest form of aerated lagoons are facultative partially mixed lagoons, in which the
energy input is sufficient to transfer the amount of oxygen required but not sufficient to keep
solids in suspension. They are normally designed for a retention time of between 4 and 10
days. Settled solids undergo anaerobic decomposition and the term facultative reflects the
fact that the lagoons operate partly in aerobic and partly in anaerobic mode. Facultative
lagoons are relatively simple to operate and use less energy than other mechanically
43
Lagoons with solids recycling are essentially the same as activated sludge plants.
Chapter 2
aerated treatment processes44. On the other hand, operators have little control over the
process and lagoons must eventually be dewatered to allow the accumulated sludge to be
removed. This is a major task which, as for desludging of anaerobic waste stabilisation
ponds if often neglected, leading to eventual failure of the facility.
Lagoons may also be designed for partial or complete mixing. In this type of lagoon, the
aerators must provide enough energy to both transfer the amount of oxygen required for
biological treatment and keep some or all of the solids in suspension. The hydraulic
retention time of such ‘aerobic flow through’ lagoons is typically in the range 3 – 6 days and
the power requirement is likely to be in the range 5 – 8 kW per 1000 m3 flow45. Mixing is
unlikely to be as good as that in activated sludge reactors because the aerators are
contained in a larger container and it is therefore difficult to avoid either interference between
aerators or the existence of ‘dead’ areas within the pond.
Complete mix lagoons are essentially the same as activated sludge reactors but without the
sludge return and so operating at lower MLSS levels. They require significantly more power
than partially mixed lagoons46.
The US EPA suggest that aerated lagoons can be divi ded into cells, typically three in series,
with the most intensive aeration occurring in the first cell and little if any the last cell,
allowing settlement to occur.
Aerated lagoons are often followed by waste stabilisation ponds, as was the case in the
system provided for Hayatabad in Peshawar. Where the loading onto the treatment plant is
expected to grow over time, there may be a case for installing anaerobic ponds in the first
instance and later adding aerators to upgrade them to aerated lagoons. If the aerated
lagoons operate efficiently, this might allow the design load to be increased by a factor of
almost 100% over a 30 year facility life.
4.3.10 Membrane bioreactors (MBRs)

Membrane bioreactors combine suspended growth biological treatment processes with the
use of membrane filtration to remove solids. An integrated aerobic MBR system comprises a
membrane module immersed in an activated sludge reactor. Alternatively, it is possible to
provide the membrane module in a separate unit after conventional aeration. MBRs may
also be used in conjunction with anaerobic suspended growth bioreactors.
Membranes used for wastewater treatment normally consist of fine hollow fibres combined
together in cartridges that in turn are combined into modules. Each module comprises the
membranes, the support structure for the membranes and feed inlet and outlet structures.
The membranes are subjected to a vacuum that draws water through the membrane while
retaining water in the reactor. Either the modules or individual cartridges can be removed for
44
Metcalf and Eddy give a range of 1 – 1.25kW/103 cubic metres, compared with a figure of 5 ‐8kW/103 cubic
metres for partially mixed lagoons.
45
Typically, the floating surface aerators are rated to deliver the amount of air equivalent to 1.8 to 2.7 kg
O2/kWh
46
The US EPA suggests 10 times but this applies to temperate climates and will have to be checked for
conditions in Punjab – see http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/apartlag.pdf
Chapter 2
maintenance and de-fouling. Provision is made for introducing air at the bottom of the
reactor for use in de-fouling membranes.
Manufacturers of MBRs claim that they overcome the problems associated with poor settling
of sludge in conventional activated sludge processes. They are normally operated at higher
MLSS concentrations than conventional activated sludge, typically up to around 8,000 to
10,000 mg/l. Elevated biomass concentrations allow for highly effective removal of both
soluble and particulate biodegradable material in the waste stream.
MBRs can be operated with higher volumetric loading rates and hence shorter reactor
retention times than conventional treatment processes, resulting in a low footprint.. Other
advantages include long sludge retention times, leading to reduced sludge production,
potential for nitrification and de-nitrification and very good effluent quality. Disadvantages
include their high capital cost, high energy cost and the need to control membrane fouling.
One system of membrane fouling control involves a combination of coarse bubble aeration,
which causes the fibres in the filters to agitate against one another and produces mechanical
scouring, backwashing with permeate, the water that has already passed through the
membrane and the periodic addition of strong sodium hypochlorite or citric acid solution
during backwashing. Metcalf and Eddy (p857) note that despite the efforts made to remove
fouling, it will tend to increase over time so that either the pressure drop across the filter
increases or the filtration rate decreases with time.
5. Disinfection
It is common in the USA to chlorinate effluent before it is discharged to the environment. In
contrast, chlorination of effluent is rarely practiced in the UK. In theory, WWTPs
implemented under India’s Ganga and Yamuna Action Plans include provision for
chlorination, which is considered essential if the effluent is to be used for irrigation. However,
given the relatively poor performance of many of the WWTPs operating in India, fairly large
doses of chlorine would be required to kill all pathogens and protect against re-infection. For
these reasons, it is probable that chlorination is not particularly effective, even if it is carried
out as planned.
Chlorination is likely to be fairly expensive and requires a reliable supply of chlorine, in

gaseous, liquid or solid form. It is a dangerous material and needs careful handling. A better
option may be to disinfect using ultra-violet radiation and this option has been used in a
number of countries. The UV radiation affects the genetic structure of pathogenic organisms,
making it impossible for them to reproduce, which prevents them from infecting people. UV
radiation has the added advantage that it does not create compounds that might harm
organisms in the receiving water. On the other hand, UV radiation is only effective when the
effluent turbidity is low and so will not be effective if other aspects of treatment are
ineffective. Another disadvantage is the need for frequent lamp maintenance and
replacement.
Chapter 2
6. Cost comparisons
Cost is a key factor when considering choices between different treatment options. There
are two aspects to this, the comparison between the overall discounted costs of options,
including their capital and recurrent costs and that between their operational costs alone.
The first is of most concern to economists and financial analysts and in theory should
provide the sole basis for comparing options. However, comparison between the operational
costs of options may also be important as these may have to be wholly met by the system
operator whereas subsidies may be available from higher levels of government for capital
costs. Bearing these points in mind, some basic information on overall and operational
costs, drawing on existing published information, is given below.
6.1 Overall costs
A recent study based on Indian experience 47 compares total annual costs for a range of
annual interest rates and land prices. For the former, rates of 5%, 10% and 15% are
assumed while for the latter, assumed prices are $US2, $US20 and $US60 per square
metre. These figures compare with a land pric e of Rs2.2 million per acre, equivalent to
Rs5.5 million per hectare or US$7.5 per square metre for land purchased for a treatment
plant near Sambrial, between Gujranwala and Sialkot. This figure can be taken as
representative for small towns in Punjab, with land close to large towns and cities being
more expensive.
The Indian study compares the costs of a pond system and a UASB system followed by a
‘polishing pond’ with a retention period of 1 day and is stated to be valid for treatment
capacity in the range 6000 – 25000m3/d, which would be appropriate for small to medium
sized towns. A comparison is also made with the cost of a Biological Aerated Filter (BAF),
which can be taken as representative of the range of more sophisticated treatment options,
including activated sludge. The WSP system is assumed to incorporate anaerobic,
facultative and maturation ponds with a total area for a 6000m3/d system of about
1.9m2/person per day. This is slightly less than the theoretical figure of 2.5m 2/person per day
calculated for a full pond system under Punjab conditions.
The comparison suggested that the WSP system would be cheaper than the UASB plant for
land prices less than about $US13 per m2 for a discount rate of 5% and $US8 per m2 for a
discount rate of 10%. For both discount rates, the waste stabilisation pond system was the
cheapest option at the Sambrial land cost of $US7.5 per m2. The cost of the BAF system
was appreciably higher than that of the other two options up to land costs of between $US20
and $US40 per m2 for discount rates between 5% and 10%.
Overall, the comparison shows that WSPs are likely to be the cheapest option where land is
available at a rate of less than about $8 per m2. As land costs increase above this figure,
UASBs followed by relatively short retention time polishing ponds will become cheaper, the
exact cross-over point between the two costs of the two technologies depending on the
discount rate and being higher for lower discount rates. If trickling filters, submerged aerated
47
Sato N, Okubo T, Onodera T, Agrawal L K, Ohashi A and Harada H (2007) Economic evaluation of sewage
treatment processes in India, Journal of Environmental Management, 84(2007) 447 – 460.
Chapter 2
filters or some form of activated sludge treatment is provided after UASBs, the capital cost
and perhaps the operational cost will be higher than that of a UASB followed by a polishing
pond but the quality of the effluent should also be higher.
6.2 Operational costs
In most cases, the main contributions to operational costs will be power and personnel costs,
with the first being particularly important. Systems, such as CEPT and chorine disinfection
will also incur costs for chemicals.
The operational costs of waste stabilisation ponds, constructed wetlands and UASBs
followed by polishing ponds should be significantly cheaper than those of other treatment
options because they require no power other than that required for pumping to raise the
wastewater prior to treatment.
The power costs of trickling filters will also be low, particularly if there is no recirculation from
of effluent from secondary clarifiers to the head of the works. Even if treated wastewater is
recirculated, power costs should be significantly less than those of activated sludge
treatment.
The power costs for aerated filters and facultative lagoons are likely to be significantly less
than those of activated sludge while power requirements for MBRs and extended aeration
will normally be higher.
Chapter 3 Waste Water
Treatment Models
1 Introduction
This section of the report sets out possible models for wastewater treatment in Punjab.
Models are presented for villages, small and medium sized towns and large towns and cities.
In each case, the focus is on the general principles to be followed and there is some room
for variations around the basic model.
2 Villages
The basic requirements of the model for wastewater treatment in villages are that it should:
• Be simple; and
• Use little or no energy. (Preferably, it should not require a source of power).
These two considerations suggest the need to use some combination of small-scale
anaerobic technologies, for instance, septic tanks, baffled reactors or upward flow anaerobic
filters, and extensive technologies such as facultative and maturation ponds and constructed
wetlands. The anaerobic technology will pr ovide ‘enhanced’ primary treatment, which
should reduce organic loading levels by at least 60%. The ponds or constructed wetlands
would provide additional treatment sufficient to reduce the organic loading to perhaps 10% of
that of the untreated wastewater while also significantly reducing concentrations of helminth
eggs and other pathogens.
Ideally, wastewater flows should be carried in sewers rather than open drains, partly for
health reasons and also to reduce the size of peak flows during storms. The latter is
important since high storm flows will tend to wash the sludge out of anaerobic reactors and
may thus adversely affect the treatment process. While introducing sewers, it may be
worthwhile to retain the small septic tanks that are normally placed on house connections
prior to discharge to open drains. These will remove some organic material but their more
important function will be to prevent large solids from entering sewers, thus allowing the
sewers to be laid at flatter gradients. Ideally, gradients should allow gravity flow to local
treatment units but the feasibility of using a gravity flow system will have to be assessed for
each location.
Small-scale anaerobic technologies are ideally suited to decentralised use because they
have a small footprint, do not require energy and are simple to operate. Their small footprint
means that decentralised facilities can be located in existing streets, on areas of public land
and on small parcels of land specifically purchased or donated for use for treatment. Finding
space to accommodate extensive technologies presents a greater challenge. One response
to this challenge might be to convert existing village ponds into treatment ponds, as shown
diagrammatically in Figures 10 and 11.
Chapter 3
Figure 10 Village Drainage

Diagrammatic representation of the existing situation
Figure 11 - Village Drainage Diagrammatic representation of improved

situation
Chapter 3
One issue with this approach will be whether existing ponds have sufficient capacity to
provide the required level of secondary treatment. The answer to this question will vary from
village to village, depending on both the population and the area of pond. Figure 12 is a
satellite image of Chak 128 village in near Jaranwala in Faisalabad District. The image
shows that there are two ponds, each between 0.2 and 0.25 hectares in area, giving a total
pond area of about 0.4ha. The total area covered by the village is about 25 hectares and
the population is probably of the order of 5000. Assuming 45m/cd BOD 5 production and
60% organic load reduction in baffled reactors, the load to the ponds will be 90kg BOD 5 per
day. Using Arthur’s equation – loading = 20T – 60 kg BOD 5 per hectare and a minimum
temperature of 15oC, the area of facultative pond required for this load will be 0.375ha. This
suggests that the existing ponds could be converted into facultative ponds, preceded by
baffled reactors and would provide reasonable treatment if the system is properly
maintained.
Village pond
Village pond
Figure 12 Satellite image of Chak 128 village, Jaranwala Tehsil
Chapter 3
The addition of additional maturation ponds would further reduce pathogen levels and help
to ensure that the effluent does not pose a health risk. Adding additional maturation ponds
should be considered if the wastewater is being used to irrigate vegetables such as
tomatoes and lettuces that might be eaten raw. It should not be necessary where
wastewater is used to irrigate crops such as cotton that are not eaten and those that are
normally cooked before eating. In these cases, it will however be advisable to ensure that
workers wear shoes and/or to encourage farmers to adopt irrigation practices that minimise
the risk to workers.
The possibility of decentralised provision of maturation ponds at points where wastewater is

to be used for irrigation should be explored. This will require understanding and commitment
on the part of farmers and will have to be preceded by efforts to educate both farmers and
the public in the health risks associated with irrigation with untreated wastewater.
The biggest challenge at the village level, as indeed in towns and cities, will be in ensuring
that facilities are desludged as and when required. For the model proposed above, the main
need will be to desludge the ‘septic tank’ compartment of baffled reactors and upward flow
anaerobic filters. This will require attention to both the arrangements for desludging the
tanks and for the subsequent safe disposal/reuse of sludge. Desludging could be carried out
using conventional sludge tankers although it will be worthwhile to encourage research into
the development of cheaper options. Sludge might be treated on conventional drying beds
although other options that use less land, for instance the use of constructed wetlands, might
be explored. The key challenge will be to provide and sustain systems for managing
desludging and sludge treatment activities. One option to be explored will be to encourage
the private sector to see sludge collection and treatment as a commercial activity, paid for at
least partly by the sale of treated sludge to farmers, but the commercial viability of this needs
further exploration.
3 Small and medium-sized towns

3.1 General principles
As with villages, the model for small towns should maximise the use of existing facilities. It
should also be as simple as possible, minimising the need for specialised skills, should not
be dependent on a reliable power supply and, even if power is required, should have low
power costs. It should also ideally have a fairly long retention period and be designed to
maximise removal of pathogens. Taken together, these requirements suggest the use of
waste stabilisation ponds or constructed wetlands wherever possible. It will normally be
advantageous to have an initial anaerobic stage, designed to remove large solids and
reduce the organic loading in the effluent. The removal of large solids will be particularly
important for constructed wetlands but will also greatly reduce the need to desludge
facultative ponds.
3.2 ‘Extensive’ treatment, the preferred option
Figure 13 shows a schematic layout for a full system, incorporating anaerobic ponds,
facultative ponds or constructed wetlands and maturation ponds.
Chapter 3
Figure 13 - Ideal model treatment system for small towns
The layout shows only one maturation pond in each stream but removal of pathogens will be
increased if each maturation pond can be subdivided to provide more than one pond in
series48. Two treatment streams are shown on the bas is that this will allow half the capacity
of the works to be retained even when one of the anaerobic ponds is closed for desludging.
Interconnection between the two streams is shown after the anaerobic ponds, allowing both
facultative and maturation pond streams to be used, even when one of the anaerobic ponds
is being desludged. No grit removal is shown on the basis that any grit will settle in the
anaerobic ponds and be removed along with sludge when the ponds are desludged.
In some towns, it may be possible to replace the anaerobic pond with decentralised
enhanced primary treatment using either baffled reactors or upward flow anaerobic filters. In
this model, the local primary treatment facilities would connect to sewers designed to run in
solids-free mode. This will allow flat gradients to be used and so will reduce the need for
pumping, which in turn will reduce operational costs and management problems. This is
likely to be a key consideration for the towns in the Punjab plain, in which the available fall is
very limited and pumping is unavoidable for conventional sewerage. Whether the use of
solids-free sewers can completely remove the need for pumping will have to be assessed
case by case but it should certainly reduce pumping costs. In this model, flow measurement
and any screening and pumping required would precede the facultative ponds49.
3.3. Options when land availability is limited
While the arrangements outlined above are ideal and are likely to be the cheapest in
financial and economic terms, experience suggests that it will not always be possible for
TMAs to obtain the land required for a full ‘extensive’ treatment system including both
facultative and maturation ponds. Where this is the case, two other options suggest
themselves:
1. Anaerobic ponds or decentralised enhanced primary treatment followed by treatment in

polishing ponds with a relatively short retention time.
2. Anaerobic ponds or decentralised enhanced primary treatment followed by facultative

aerated lagoons and, if possible, maturation ponds.
Each of these options is now briefly described and then assessed.
48
For small systems, the advantages of subdividing ponds must be weighed against the reduction in area
resulting from the additional bunds required for the subdivision.
49
In theory, screening will not be required since the wastewater will already have passed through the
decentralised anaerobic stage of treatment.
Chapter 3
3.3.1 Anaerobic ponds followed by polishing ponds
This system draws on the approach adopted in India, where UASBs are followed by ponds
with a retention time of 1 to 1.5 days. The proposed system adopts the same principle but
replaces UASBs with either anaerobic ponds, which are simpler and do not require greatly
more space than UASBs, or decentralised enhanced primary treatment. Studies in India
suggest that the polishing ponds can typically reduce the BOD5 of the effluent by a further
30%, which on top of the 60% or so achieved during the primary treatment stage should
result in total BOD reduction in excess of 75%. So, if the influent BOD 5 is below 320mg/l,
this system should normally achieve EPA BOD 5discharge standards, as long as the system
is effectively managed. An diagrammatic representation of this system, loosely based on the
system proposed for Sambrial under the Punjab Municipal Services Improvement Project
(PMSIP) is shown in Figure 14.
Incoming
sewer
‘Polishing’ pond Anaerobic pond

Agricultural
drain
Anaerobic pond
Coarse
screen Sludge drying beds
PS
Flow measurement
Figure 14 - System using 'polishing' ponds to reduce land requirement
3.3.2 Anaerobic ponds followed by aerated lagoons
Figure 15 shows a possible schematic arrangement for treatment in anaerobic ponds,

followed by aerated lagoons and maturation ponds. Aerated lagoons are sometimes
provided after preliminary treatment but primary treatment in anaerobic ponds will reduce the
load on the lagoons and hence the energy required for aeration. This, in turn will reduce the
power requirement, so reducing the operational cost. The layout shows maturation ponds
following the aerated lagoons and these should ideally be provided to ensure that there is no
carry through of solids and to improve performance in removing pathogens. These could be
omitted if land is in short supply although it will then be advisable to restrict effluent reuse to
crops that will not be eaten raw.
The aerated lagoons should be designed to operate in facultative mode, with anaerobic
conditions towards the bottom of the lagoons and aerobic conditions in the upper 2 metres or
Chapter 3
so. The ponds should normally be about 3 metres deep and typically would have a retention
period of about 3 days.
measurement
pumping
screens
Coarse
station
Flow
Inlet
Figure 15 - System with aerated lagoons to reduce land requirement
The main disadvantages of this system are its reliance on power and the higher level of
mechanical skills required to maintain it as compared with the other small to medium-sized
town options. Because of the relatively long retention of the aerated lagoons, the system
should cope with changes in flow and biological loading fairly well. Its land requirement will
probably be similar to that of the system using polishing ponds, perhaps slightly more.
However, it should produce a better effluent.
3.4 Pathogen removal
It is likely that a high proportion of wastewater from small and medium-sized towns will be
used for irrigating crops, some of which will be salad crops. It will therefore be important to
consider the performance of the various treatment options in removing pathogens,
particularly helminth eggs. In the event that full pathogen removal cannot be guaranteed,
other measures to protect health will have to be considered.
Full ‘extensive’ treatment provides the best option for removing pathogens although the
monitoring of the Faisalabad waste stabilisation pond effluent suggests that short-circuiting
can still result in pathogen levels in the effluent above WHO recommended standards. Both
options for use where limited land is available reduce the retention time in the treatment
system and neither is likely to reduce concentrations of helminth eggs down to the levels
required to remove the risk of subsequent disease transmission among workers and
consumers50. Disinfection might be considered but because of the relatively high turbidity of
the effluent neither chlorination nor UV light disinfection is likely to be particularly effective.
This problem is not unique to the technologies suggested here. One possible option for
reducing the effect of pathogens on workers and consumers might be to move from furrow
irrigation to drip irrigation but further research is required on this. The better option may be
to restrict the use of wastewater to crops that are not intended to be eaten raw and to
encourage workers to wear shoes and take other appropriate measures to reduce the risk of
contamination.
50
Jiminez et al suggest that a retention period of between 5 and 20 days will normally be required to ensure
removal of helminth eggs, depending on the helminth content in the raw water.
Chapter 3
4 Large towns and cities

4.1 Introduction
In most cases, the best strategy for large towns and cities will be to provide wastewater
treatment to serve existing main drainage areas. Thus, for instance, in Lahore, there are
currently six main drainage areas, each discharging to a pumping station. Small drainage
systems that are currently detached from the main systems should normally be connected to
the main systems but there may be situations in peripheral areas in which local treatment,
using extensive treatment technologies, may be appropriate.
The high price of land and the likely presence of existing development are likely to preclude
the use of waste stabilisation ponds and constructed wetlands close to the town or city. This
leaves two options:
1. Provide ponds or wetlands at a location some distance from the city where land is
available at an affordable price.
2. Provide treatment using ‘intensive’ treatment technologies on land close to the town.
The first option has been adopted for Rawalpindi and will always be worth considering where
fall is available so that wastewater does not have to be pumped to the remote location. It is
less likely to be appropriate where the lack of fall means that wastewater will have to be
pumped, agricultural land close to a town is of good quality and hence expensive or both. In
such situations, which are likely to be the norm in areas other than the Potohar Plateau, the
second option will normally be more appropriate. The question with this option is what
combination of primary and secondary treatment technologies is likely to be most
appropriate.
4.2 Guiding principles for the intensive treatment model
The main principles to be considered when selecting the preferred treatment model for cities
and large towns are that:
1. Energy costs and hence recurrent running costs should be minimised.
2. The combined present value of construction and operational costs should be
comparable with or better than those of competing technologies.
3. The chosen treatment technology or technologies should be relatively easy to operate
4. The chosen treatment technology or technologies should be reasonably robust and able
to deal with variations in flow and influent quality.
5. The land take should be less than, or at least not significantly greater than, that of other
technology options.
6. Where effluent is to be used for irrigation, provision should be made for reducing
pathogen levels, particularly helminth egg concentrations, to within the levels
recommended by the WHO for unrestricted or restricted irrigation as appropriate.
In practice, there will have to be compromises. Minimising dependence on energy is clearly

important, as are costs. The use to be made of effluent should always be considered when
Chapter 3
assessing treatment options. If differences in land take are not great, it will normally be
better to adopt the simpler and cheaper technology. Bearing these various points in mind,
options for primary and secondary treatment are now examined.
4.3 Primary treatment options
The first criterion can be achieved by choosing a primary treatment technology that
maximises organic load reduction as well as reduction in suspended solids. On this basis,
the best primary treatment options will be anaerobic ponds, UASBs, CEPT and APT.
Anaerobic ponds are the simplest and will normally be the cheapest of these options but will
require rather more land than the others. Where they are located close to habitation, the
possibility that they will create a smell nuisance has also to be considered. With regard to
the sixth criterion, CEPT and APT appear to have the potential advantages that they reduce
pathogen levels more than other technologies, However, to date, there have been few
examples of the use of CEPT and APT technologies at scale in situations similar to those
found in Punjab. UASBs have been used fairly extensively in both India and Brazil in
situations that are not dissimilar to those found in Punjab. Their performance in India has
been rather disappointing but this can be attributed largely to weaknesses in operational
procedures, particularly as these relate to controlling sludge levels in the reactors. The
available evidence suggests that performance in Brazil has been better and there seems to
be no reason why, in principle and with adequate provision for good basic maintenance,
UASBs should not operate satisfactorily in Pakistan.
Detailed estimates are not available but the cost of UASBs is likely to be broadly similar to
that of conventional sedimentation tanks. The operational cost of CEPT and APT treatment
may be rather higher than that of other options because of the requirement for chemicals
and, while further research is needed on the amount of sludge produced, it is likely to be
higher than that for anaerobic options.
Taking account of all these points, the prefer red primary treatment options will be anaerobic
ponds and UASBs, the former where sufficient land is available at an acceptable distance
from habitation and the latter where land availability is more limited. CEPT and APT
approaches are also worth exploring but cannot be recommended at present because there
is limited experience of them in situations like that in Punjab and key issues, including the
cost of chemicals and the amount of sludge produced need further investigation.
It is possible that primary treatment alone will be sufficient to achieve the EPA BOD 5 and
suspended solids standards. However, it will normally be necessary to provide secondary
treatment to achieve these standards and certainly secondary treatment will be required to
achieve the effluent quality required if gross pollution in the Ravi and lengths of the Chenab
is to be eliminated. With this in mind, and taking account of the principles already listed,
options for secondary treatment are now assessed.
4.4 Secondary treatment options
Where land is available, it should be possible to provide secondary treatment in ponds or

perhaps a combination of ponds and constructed wetlands. Ideally, ponds should be
designed to act as facultative and maturation ponds but there will be many situations in the
Chapter 3
available land is insufficient for this option. An other possibilty, requiring rather less land, will
be to follow the Indian model and provide ‘polishing’ ponds with approximately one day’s
retention. As already indicated when discussing options for smaller towns, this option should
bring BOD5 concentrations below the EPA standard if combined with enhanced primary
treatment in anaerobic ponds or UASBs. Both true facultative/maturation pond systems
score highly on the criteria of limited energy use, low construction and operating cost and
operational simplicity. They should also c ope better with variations in flow and organic
loading than options with a shorter retention time. A well designed facultative/maturation
pond system is perhaps the only treatment option that will reduce pathogen concentrations
to acceptable levels without disinfection. Despite this, the high cost or non-availability of
land may mean that even the less effective treatment option provided by short retention
polishing ponds is either impossible or not financially viable. Another disadvantage of the
polishing pond option is that it will not reduce organic loadings to the point at which real
improvements in highly polluted rivers like the Ravi can be expected.
For these reasons, it will often be necessary to consider other secondary treatment options.
These include trickling filters, submerged aerated filters, conventional activated sludge,
extended aeration, aerated lagoons and more sophisticated options such as sequencing
batch reactors (SBRs), moving bed biological reactors (MBBRs) and Membrane bioreactors
(MBRs). In general, bearing in mind the principles already articulated, simpler options that
use less power should be preferred. In terms of these criteria, trickling filters offer the best
option, despite the fact that they use rather more land than other options. Submerged
aerated filters and facultative aerated lagoons might also be considered on the grounds that
they use less energy than activated sludge-based technologies. Of the two, submerged
aerated filters are likely to be preferable because they use less land. Activated sludge
should be avoided where possible because of its relatively high energy requirement, as
should extended aeration. It is possible that the more sophisticated options may have a
place where there is a need to produce a high quality effluent but this is unlikely to be a
priority in the short-term
4.5 Disinfection options
Most of the treatment options that are suitable for use in large towns and cities will not
guarantee removal of pathogens to a level that meets WHO standards for unrestricted
irrigation. This suggests a need for disinfection if treated effluent is to be used for irrigation.
Provided that turbidity levels can be reduced sufficiently, UV radiation would appear to offer
the best disinfection option but this is a subject that would benefit from further research.
4.6 Recommendations
Based on the discussion in previous sub-sections, the following treatment options are
recommended for large towns and cities.
1. Where fall is available so that wastewater can be carried to a location at which land is
both available and affordable, consider extensive treatment in ponds, constructed
wetlands or a combination of the two. Anaerobic ponds should normally be provided
for primary treatment.
Chapter 3
2. Where land availability is limited or land is expensive, aim to provide enhanced
primary treatment in order to remove as much of the organic load as possible prior to
secondary treatment. This might take the form of anaerobic ponds, UASBs or, if
research shows that the option is viable, chemically enhanced primary treatment
(CEPT). The preferred options for secondary treatment in roughly descending order
of priority will be polishing ponds, trickling filters, submerged biological aerated filters,
facultative aerated lagoons and activated sludge.
3. Where effluent is to be used for irrigation and the treatment option chosen does not
meet WHO effluent quality standards, the possibility of disinfection may be
considered, preferably using UV radiation. (This should not be necessary for full
waste stabilisation pond systems).
4. Where primary treatment is provided in anaerobic ponds, no grit removal facilities

should be provided. In all other cases, provision for grit removal will be required. The
best option would appear to be rectangular horizontal flow tanks but it will be
worthwhile to install other technologies on a pilot basis and monitor their
performance.
5. Screening options, including the use of fine screen options, including wedge-wire
screens, drum screens and step screens, should be further explored.
Figures 7 to 10 show a number of possible combinations of enhanced primary and

secondary treatment, including details of suggested preliminary treatment. Where land
is either expensive or in short supply, the preferred arrangements are likely to be those
shown in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 9 shows a possible arrangement where sufficient land
is available to provide facultative aerated lagoons with a total retention of perhaps 4
days. Aeration is shown as being provided in a series of aerated lagoons, two in the
diagram although it is fairly common to provide three. Figure 10 shows secondary
treatment being provided by an activated sludge process. This will require slightly less
land than the trickling filter option but unless land is in very short supply this advantage is
likely to be outweighed by increased energy and operational skills requirements.
In options 14, 15 and 17, the UASBs could be replaced by anaerobic ponds, provided
that the location is sufficiently far from habitation. Conversely, the anaerobic ponds used
for option 16 could be replaced by UASBs although the land saving achieved through
this option is unlikely to be a major influence on the choice. The potential for gas and
hence energy generation from UASBs might be a more important consideration although
it must be said that experience to date from UASBs in India is that gas production is not
really significant.
Chapter 3
Figure 16 General arrangement UASB followed by trickling filters
Figure 17 General Arrangement - UASBS followed by submerged aerated

filters
Figure 18 Anaerobic ponds followed by facultative aerated lagoons
Figure 19 General Arrangement UASB followed by activated sludge
Chapter 4 Strategy Options
1 Introduction
In this final section of the report, possible strategies for improving wastewater management
in Punjab are examined and key aspects of the recommended strategy are explained. First,
the requirements for an effective strategy are described with emphasis placed on the need to
be clear about objectives, to generate and respond to demand and to take account of the
context and the availability of resources. The need to consider the impact of improved
treatment on conditions at different locations is stressed, as is the need to take account of
existing sewerage and drainage arrangements. Bearing in mind the present situation with
regard to all of these, a possible strategy is outlined. Key aspects of this strategy include an
initial emphasis on the larger cities, with parallel efforts to implement pilot and demonstration
projects in villages and smaller towns and to gather the additional information required to
formulate a more comprehensive plan of action. The need to develop appropriate
institutions is also highlighted.
2 Requirements for an effective strategy

Moving from the current situation, with very little wastewater is treated, to 100% treatment of
all wastewater cannot be achieved overnight. In the UK, for example, with a total population
rather less than that of Punjab, the time lag from initial provision of sewers to full wastewater
treatment provision was at least 100 years. For much of that time, the UK was a major
economic power with considerable financial and human resources. Pakistan’s access to
resources is considerably more limited so that it is hardly realistic to assume that full
treatment of all wastewater can be achieved in a period of 10 years or even 20 years.
This does not mean that nothing can be done. It does mean that actions should be carefully
considered and combined in an overall strategy for wastewater improvement that sets out
realistic steps to be taken to move from the existing unsatisfactory situation to the desired
goal of 100% safe disposal or reuse of wastewater.
The strategy needs to take account of:
• The objectives to be achieved, in terms of both human health and the environment.
• Demand for improved wastewater management, since without demand very little can be
achieved.
• The availability of resources, both human and financial, for both the design and the
ongoing management, operation and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities
• The relative impacts of interventions in different locations and of different types on
health and the environment.
• Existing sewerage and drainage arrangements
Each of these is considered in more detail below.
Chapter 4
2.1 Objectives
When wastewater is to be used for irrigation, the objective should be to reduce pathogen
concentrations to a level that does not endanger the health of agricultural workers and the
people who consume produce produced on irrigate land. It will be particularly important to
reduce the number of helminth eggs, including ascaris and hookworm eggs, to acceptable
levels, ideally below 1 egg per litre. This requirement should be met both for wastewater
used directly for irrigation and that discharged to agricultural canals and drains, from which it
is extracted by farmers.
When wastewater is to be discharged to natural watercourses, either directly or indirectly via

agricultural drains, objective should to restrict the biological and suspended solids loads to
levels that will not cause unacceptable deterioration in the receiving water quality. In
particular, the aim should be to ensure that oxygen levels are maintained at or above the
level required for the survival of fish and other forms of aquatic life.
2.2 Demand for improved wastewater management
Investment in wastewater treatment is unlikely to be cost-effective if there is no demand for

it. Demand from policy makers, including politicians and senior civil servants is important but
there must also be a commitment to improved wastewater management on the part of those
who will be responsible for the day to day management of wastewater treatment facilities.
For smaller towns and villages,, this means TMAs at present although the possibility of other
organisations operating WWTPs on behalf of TMAs will be considered later. In the large
cities, the responsible organisations are, of course, WASAs. Improved wastewater
management will be more likely to be sustained if there is also public recognition of its
importance. In particular, It is important that farmers are aware of the health risks associated
with irrigation with untreated wastewater.
2.3 Resources
Key resources to consider when developing a wastewater treatment strategy include land,
power, knowledge and skills. Both the costs and the availability of land and power must be
considered when assessing wastewater treatment options. There may be situations in which
an ‘extensive’ system based on ponds or constructed wetlands is the cheapest but is likely
to be impractical because the land required for it in unlikely to be available. Conversely,
power-dependent technologies such as activated sludge and extended aeration are unlikely
to produce good results if there are frequent interruptions to the electricity supply. Over and
above these considerations, technologies requiring specialist operator knowledge and skills
should only be considered if that knowledge and those skills can be provided and sustained.
2.4 Relative impacts on different locations
The impact of treatment on wastewater discharged to natural water courses depends to a

large extent on the relationship between the quantity of wastewater and the flow in the
receiving water course. The higher the wastewater flow in relation to the flow in the water
course, the higher must be the level of treatment required to ensure acceptable downstream
water quality conditions. To give a practical exam ple of this, discharge of wastewater from a
village into the River Indus is likely to have a negligible effect on water quality in the Indus
Chapter 4
because of the relatively small flow from the village and the very large flow in the Indus.
Conversely, wastewater from towns on the Potohar Plateau is likely to have a major impact
on water quality in the seasonal watercourses to which they discharge.
The quality of water in the receiving water course also influences the impact of treatment.
Treating relatively small quantities of wastewater discharged to an already polluted river is
likely to lead to relatively small changes in water quality in the river. Treating the same
amount of wastewater before discharge to a river whose water quality is border-line
acceptable is likely to achieve greater impacts.
Taken together, these considerations suggest a need to develop a rational approach to

prioritizing wastewater treatment intervention, taking into account the use to be made of the
wastewater, its quantity and, in the case of discharge to a watercourse, the flow in the
minimum flow in the watercourse and its quality.
These considerations are of less importance when wastewater is used to irrigate crops,
when the level of treatment required will be essentially the same, regardless of location.
2.5 Existing sewerage and drainage arrangements
Wastewater treatment should not be viewed on its own but rather as an element in a full
wastewater management system, covering house connections, sewers and drains, pumping
stations, treatment facilities and disposal/reuse arrangements. When prioritising treatment
initiatives, priority should be given to cities/towns and areas within those cities/towns in
which a high proportion of wastewater is discharged to the sewers that will convey
wastewater to the treatment works. Where a significant proportion of the flow continues to
be discharged to open drains rather than sewers, wastewater treatment proposals should
either follow or be combined with proposals to transfer wastewater flows from drains to
sewers.
3 Proposed strategy
Bearing in mind the points made above, an outline strategy is now suggested, covering the
following points:
• Where the initial focus should be
• Development of an improved information base
• Role of pilot and demonstration initiatives
• Development of appropriate management arrangements
The implementation of any strategy will also require careful attention to the relationships
between the different stakeholders, including the Provincial Government, the Public Health
Engineering Department, The national Environmental Protection Agency and provincial
Environmental Protection Department, District, TMAs and, in the case of village level
initiatives Union Councils. Where NGOs and the private sector are involved, their role will
also have to be considered.
Chapter 4
Bearing in mind these general remarks, the key points listed above are now considered in
more detail.
3.1 Where the initial focus should be
The initial focus should be on cities and large towns, which produce the largest wastewater
flows, with the greatest potential impact on health and the environment, while having more
capacity than smaller towns to manage wastewater treatment processes. Among these
cities, four broad categories can be identified:
1. Cities and towns that discharge to rivers with water quality that is either just acceptable
or could be brought to an acceptable level with relatively small investment in wastewater
treatment. The Chenab is probably the river that best fits this description.
2. Large towns on rivers that are relatively unpolluted rivers, including the Indus, Jhelum
and Sutlej rivers. (The only large towns in this category are Jhelum, Bahawalpur and
DG Khan
3. Cities and towns on rivers that are already grossly polluted. The obvious example of a
grossly polluted river is the Ravi, which receives wastewater from Lahore. Rawalpindi,
which discharges wastewater to the Soan River also falls into this category.
4. Cities and towns that are remote from large rivers, whose wastewater is either used
directly for irrigation or is discharged to agricultural and SCARP drains. Faisalabad,
Gujranwala, Sarghoda, Sialkot, Sahiwal and Okara fall into this category although it
should be noted that much of their wastewater may eventually reach major rivers. This
is certainly the case with Faisalabad, from which wastewater is discharged via
agricultural drains to both the Ravi and the Chenab rivers.
Arguably, the initial focus should be on towns and cities that fall into categories 1 and 4,
since dealing with the wastewater from these towns is likely to have the greatest impact on
the environment and health. In the case of a city like Lahore, in which some of the
wastewater is discharged to a river and some used for irrigation, the initial focus should be
on treating wastewater that is used for irrigation. However, the needs of cities and towns in
the other two categories should not be ignored. In particular, there is clearly some demand
to improve the state of the River Ravi. Bringing the water quality in the river up to an
acceptable standard will be expensive and is likely to take many years. While there is no
reason that an early start should not be made on improving the condition of the river, it must
be recognised that it may take some time before tangible results, in terms of river water
quality, can be achieved.
3.2 Developing the information base
. In order to convert the general principles suggested in the previous sub-section into
proposals for concrete action, more detailed information will be required, covering:
• Discharges to specific rivers and the present flows and water quality in those rivers.
• Wastewater disposal arrangements around specific towns.
Chapter 4
Information in the first category can be used to develop models to predict the impact of
different wastewater treatment options on water quality, in particular dissolved oxygen levels,
in those rivers. The Punjab Environmental Protection Department might take the lead in this
although it may be best to employ the services of a university department for detailed
investigations and modelling work. Maximum use should be made of already existing data
and any extant studies should be investigated to determine whether the information that they
contain can be used.
Information on wastewater disposal arrangements around specific towns will be required in

order to determine whether and where wastewater is being used for irrigation. The results of
investigations should be shown on the best available map or satellite image of the town and
its surroundings. They should include information on main sewers and drains, outfall
pumping stations (disposal stations), the channels and water bodies to which wastewater is
discharged and, if possible, approximate information on areas irrigated with wastewater.
Where wastewater is discharged to an agricultural or SCARP drain, the downstream flow in
the drain should be investigated with the intention of establishing whether, where and in
approximately what quantity wastewater is being extracted from the drain to irrigate fields.
Once this information has been obtained and plotted, it can be used to identify those
discharges that are being used mainly for irrigation. All other things being equal, these
discharges should have the highest priority for treatment since treating them is likely to have
the highest impact upon health. It can also be used to estimate flows and polluting loads
discharged to rivers. This information will be required to model existing conditions in rivers
and the results of this modelling can then be used to calibrate models of the impacts of
different treatment strategies on conditions in the rivers.
Information will also be required to assess the action to be taken to identify and develop
appropriate management and oversight arrangements. Management and oversight
arrangements will be briefly considered later in this document but clearly the options, their
advantages and disadvantages require further investigation, based on relevant and accurate
information.
3.3 Pilot and demonstration initiatives
While providing improved wastewater management province-wide for smaller towns and
villages is probably not the highest priority, opportunities for improved provision in individual
towns and villages should be taken when they arise. Indeed, there is a good case for
encouraging the implementation of ‘model’ wastewater management arrangements in
selected, or preferably self-selected, towns and villages. There may also be opportunities to
pilot decentralised approaches to wastewater management in larger towns and cities.
However, such urban pilots should only be supported if there is clear evidence that they
have the potential to be scaled up to have a significant impact at the town or city-wide level.
Pilot schemes should use the overall principles and approach recommended in the ‘models’
section of this report. However, these should not be followed uncritically. Rather, the aim
should be to use pilot and demonstration activities to develop workable ideas on how
general principles and generic ideas can be converted into practice in real situations. This
will require attention to factors such as the feasibility of completely eliminating pumping,
Chapter 4
community responses to any proposal to convert the village pond into a formal treatment
facility and the options for safely desludging tanks and ponds. Assessing such issues in
typical villages will allow any necessary alterations in approach to be made before any
attempt is made to implement the approach on a province-wide or even district-wide scale.
Wherever possible, appropriate support should be sought for pilot and demonstration
activities. These might include international agencies, both multi-lateral and bi-lateral, but
there should also be opportunities to work with specialist NGOs. For instance, the German-
based NGO BORDA (Bremen Overseas Research and Development Agency), which has
specialist knowledge of the design and implementation of decentralised anaerobic treatment
processes, has expressed interest in working in Pakistan and could well provide a resource
for pilot and demonstration initiatives at the village level.
The locations for pilot projects should not be chosen at random. Rather, the aim should be
to work in villages and towns in which one or more ‘champions’ of change have already
expressed interest in introducing improved wastewater management practices. The
champion might be an NGO, a community-based organisation, an influential private
individual or an elected representative.
The Asian Development Bank and the World Bank are funding a number of wastewater
treatment initiatives in small and medium sized towns under their South Punjab Basic Urban
Services and Punjab Municipal Services Improvement (PMSIP) projects. Most involve waste
stabilisation pond treatment, usually involving both anaerobic and facultative ponds. They
provide an opportunity to introduce and monitor appropriate management arrangements,
focusing particularly on the need to keep pond sides free of vegetation, ensure that screens
are effective in keeping floating solids out of ponds and implement effective measures for
removing and safely dealing with sludge.
The lessons, both positive and negative, learnt from pilot projects should be documented
and viewed as valuable information to be input to the next stage of the strategy.
3.4 Appropriate management arrangements
As indicated in the previous sub-section, pilot projects can be used to test possible
management arrangements for wastewater treatment facilities. Past experience in Pakistan
and in countries such as India with similar working environments suggests that early
attention to maintenance issues will be required if treatment facilities are to continue to
operate effectively over time. This is an important point which must be addressed if the
strategy is to achieve lasting results.
The basic management options to be explored include:

• Continued direct management by WASAs, TMAs and UCs as appropriate.
• Contracting out of some or all management responsibilities, as allowed in the PLGO.
• Corporatisation, which may be particularly appropriate for utilities serving large towns
and cities.
Chapter 4
• The development of new management arrangements, perhaps involving a Provincial
Board with overall responsibility for all aspects of wastewater management within the
province.
Some general points on each of these management options are made below.
Direct management is more likely to be appropriate for large towns and cities than for TMAs
and UCs. Even for large cities, there will be a need to investigate management and
oversight systems in order to ensure that wastewater treatment is given the attention and
resources that it requires. Special attention will need to be paid to employing and training
managers and operators with specific wastewater treatment responsibilities. Incentive
structures and management procedures will have to be adjusted to ensure that they support
rather than hinder decision-making.
The available evidence suggests that contracting out can lead to better service provision, not
least because the private sector has more flexibility and is less constrained by restrictive
systems and procedures than government. However, the performance of contractors needs
to be monitored and effective sanctions must be both available and applied to ensure that
that performance is satisfactory. So, the success or otherwise of contracting out
arrangements will depend on the oversight arrangements employed and whether or not they
are effective. Successful contracting out will also be dependent on both contractors and
those responsible for overseeing them having:
• Adequate knowledge of the operational procedures associated with the selected
wastewater treatment technology; and
• The skills necessary to implement those procedures.
It may be that some of the necessary knowledge and skills are available with private sector
companies already working on wastewater treatment for the private industrial sector.
Further investigations are required to identify such companies, assess their knowledge and
skills as they relate to municipal wastewater management and determine their willingness to
work with the public sector.
Corporatisation will be most appropriate for the utilities serving the large cities. The term
corporatisation is used here to denote the creation of government owned corporate utilities
rather than the divestiture of assets to the private sector. The two Sui Gas companies
provides a possible model. Success depends on water and wastewater utilities have a
significant degree of autonomy and can move towards full commercial viability with minimum
need for ongoing subsidy from government. This will be easier to achieve for water supply
than for sewerage and wastewater management and it is probable that government subsidy
will be required for wastewater treatment for some time to come. Moves towards achieving
a degree of corporatisation have already started in the various WASAs and the need now is
to consider the particular requirements associated with wastewater management.
The Wastewater Disposal Board model will be most appropriate for villages and small towns.
The advantage of this arrangement is that it provides a body, specifically concerned with
wastewater management, with the information, knowledge and financial resources required
to plan effectively for improved wastewater management at the local level. It is very doubtful
whether many TMAs on their own will have these resources. Much more detailed
investigations will be required before the viability or otherwise of the concept in Punjab
Chapter 4
conditions can be assessed. Also, there is a need to consider who would be responsible for
service provision under the Board concept. In some countries, local service providers are
responsible for providing services under the overall direction and oversight of Water and
Sewerage Boards and this model may be appropriate for Punjab.
4 Next steps
One key to implementing a successful strategy will be to be clear about objectives and have
a shared long-term vision. What these might involve has already been discussed. Long-term
success is also dependent on taking the first steps along the road towards achievement of
the overall vision. It is this aspect of strategic planning that is often neglected. Early steps
on the road towards improved wastewater management might include the following:
• More detailed technical assessment of the wastewater treatment options identified in the
‘models’ section of this report. This asse ssment might draw on experience elsewhere,
drawing on the experience of specialists in the technologies identified. Ideally, it should
also include laboratory and field studies carried out in Punjab conditions, preferably by
Punjab based institutions such as the Institute of Environmental Engineering and
Research at the Lahore University of Engineering and Technology. Where possible,
private sector organisations with an interest in wastewater treatment processes and
technologies should also be involved and links between academic institutions and
private companies should be encouraged.
• Efforts to raise awareness of the need for good wastewater management among senior
decision-makers. These efforts should build on the current Chief Minister’s obvious
interest in the subject, focusing on identifying practical options for converting interest
into action on the ground.
• Planning, design, implementation, operation and monitoring of pilot projects designed to
field-test proposed technologies and approaches. These might include implementation
of the proposed village and small town wastewater management models identified in
this document and perhaps implementation of pilot scale treatment plants in larger
cities. Where possible and desirable, suppo rt should be sought from international
agencies and NGOs. In some cases, initiatives are already proceeding. Examples
include the various WWTPs being implemented in South Punjab with ADB funding and
the proposed WWTPs for Sambrial and other towns that are to be implemented with
PMSIP funding. The key needs with these initiatives will be to ensure that adequate
operational arrangements are put into place and that those operational arrangements
are effectively monitored. The issues will be how to provide the support to ensure that
adequate arrangements are in place and who should be responsible for monitoring
those arrangements.
• Planning and implementation of innovative management models, covering the range of
options identified in the previous sub-section. Where possible and appropriate, these
should be combined with pilot projects. Institutional initiatives should come from the
Provincial Government but bilateral and multi-lateral agencies should be encouraged to
support those initiatives wherever possible.
ANNEX (1)
FURTHER INFORMATION ON EXISTING TREATMENT
General
The content of this Annex is based on a number of sources, including personal records, a
report produced by the British firm Balfour Maunsell in the mid 1990s, published papers and
newspaper reports that are available on websites. The sources of information are identified
and any discrepancies in the available information are highlighted.
Hayatabad, Peshawar
The plant was commissioned in mid 1990 and functioned well until the end of 1992, despite
the fact that it had operated at above design capacity from June 1991. The plant failed in
the winter of 1992/3 and was then by-passed. The Balfour Maunsell report suggests that the
problem was caused by sludge and grit deposits in the aerated lagoons. However, flow
measurements and BOD tests carried out by the chemist attached to the Project
Management Unit for the ADB-funded Second Urban Development Project (SUDP) suggest
that the immediate cause of failure was overloading of the facultative ponds. This was due
partly to increased loading to the works, which in turn resulted from three factors: (a) the
growth of Hayatabad, (b) the fact that some areas outside the planned drainage area had
been connected to the works and (c) the failure to extend the works, despite the fact that
land had been set aside for it. Equally important was the tendency not to use the air
diffusers in order to save electricity, which meant that the facultative ponds became loaded
to a level well beyond that recommended by recognised design guidelines. Despite this, they
continued to work satisfactorily for a time before failing spectacularly in about February
1993. At this stage, the ponds went partly or wholly anaerobic and the plant started to smell
very badly. Because the site is surrounded by housing, the works was immediately by-
passed with wastewater allowed to proceed untreated to the normally dry nullah to which the
treated effluent had discharged. Since that time, probably 1993, the works has been by-
passed and so is providing no treatment.
The Balfour Maunsell report suggests that there were also problems because solids had
accumulated in the aerated lagoons and had not been removed. The report refers to grit and
certainly the grit channels provided before the lagoons were located well below ground level,
with only ladder access and would have been difficult to clean. It is almost certain that grit
removal was neglected and this probably explains the reference to grit in the aerated
lagoons. However, as already indicated, t he diffused aerators were not regularly used so
that the lagoons would have operated as anaerobic waste stabilisation ponds rather than
aerated lagoons. Perhaps the commonest cause of failure of anaerobic ponds is failure to
remove sludge, a task that is required infrequently but entails a fair amount of organisation
and effort. So, it is not altogether surprising that Balfour Maunsell identified failure to remove
solids from the lagoons as a significant problem.
Islamabad
The Balfour Maunsell report focused on treatment plants 1 and 2, which were built in the
1960s with a capacity of 4mgd. (18.2 mld) It states that, as originally constructed, the plants
had no grit removal facilities and that this was causing operational difficulties. No monitoring
of plant performance was being carried out and there was no specific financial planning for
the sewerage and sewage treatment functions. Despite this, the plant was reported as
functioning as well as could be expected given the circumstances. At the time, Treatment
Plant 3, which had been built in the early 1980s with a capacity of 3mgd, (13.6mld) was non-
operational. A Daily Times report, dated July 9 th 2008 suggests that this was because there
had been contractual difficulties. Subsequently, efforts were made to find funding to
refurbish the existing plants and add a fourth treatment plant with a capacity of 10mgd
(45.4mld) to serve the Western sectors of the capital. These were ultimately successful and
work on refurbishment of the three existing plants and construction of the fourth plant began
in 2005 with financial support from the French government. The French firm Veolia won a
design and build contract for the work, which was completed in August 2007. The Daily
Times report referred to above noted that the volume of sewage being received at the plant
was less than intended because of breaks in the sewerage system in the city. The report
also noted the intention to build further ‘area-centric’ plants to serve other parts of
Islamabad.
Faisalabad
The Faisalabad pond system was originally planned in the 1980s as part of a water and
sanitation project that was to receive funding from the ADB. Problems at the time prevented
it from being completed and it was not commissioned until 1998. The pond system receives
flow from the largest trunk sewer in Faisalabad and was designed to treat about 32% of the
total sewage flow from the city although recent estimates suggest that the actual figure is
about 20%. Sewage is pumped from the main western outfall sewer to a channel which
distributes it among 6 anaerobic ponds. Followi ng this, flow is divided into two streams,
each consisting of a facultative pond and two maturation ponds. Details of the ponds are as
follows:
Unit Details of pond Area/volume

Anaerobic ponds 6 no. 150m x 100m x 4m depth 9ha 360,000m3
Facultative ponds 2 no 450m x 300m x 1.5m 21ha 405,000m3
Maturation ponds 4 no 450m x 300m x 1.5m 42ha 810,000m3
Retention in the anaerobic ponds, allowing 1 metre depth of pond for sludge storage, was to
have been 3 days at the design flow with retention in the facultative ponds being 4.5 days
and that in each of the two maturation ponds also being 4.5 days, giving a total retention of
16.5 days. Retention in the anaerobic ponds would have been about 3.5 days
The design capacity of the system is 90,000m3/d with an assumed influent BOD5 of 380mg/l
although a study carried out during the period September 2001 to August 2002 revealed that
actual flows at the inlet pumping station varied from 71,300m3/d to 94,300 m3/d with an
average 12% below the design flow. Measurements revealed that the actual average BOD 5
of the influent was 394mg/l, close to that assumed in the design. However, not all these
flows were passing through the WSP system. The study found that on average over half the
flow, 42,100m 3/d day was being used for irrigation before treatment with only on average
37,200m3/d proceeding to the anaerobic ponds. This meant that the flow through the ponds
was less than half the design flow, resulting in considerably longer retention than assumed
by the plant designers. The main crops irrigated with wastewater were vegetables, wheat
and fodder. Vegetables included spinach, aubergine, cauliflower, chillies and tomatoes.
Initial calculations, based on commonly used design equations for anaerobic and facultative
ponds suggest that:
• The anaerobic ponds are rather over-designed. The actual volume required at the
design loading for winter conditions is about half the volume actually provided.
(Anaerobic pond performance may suffer if the ponds are underloaded and there may
be a case for taking some of the ponds out of commission and increasing the loading on
the others).
• In contrast, the facultative pond design appears to provide insufficient area. The least
conservative equation for waste stabilisation pond size is Arthur’s equation BOD 5
Loading = (20T – 60)kg/ha.d, which at Lahore’s average temperature over the coldest
three months of the year gives an allowable loading of 224kg/ha.d. Assuming 50%
BOD5 reduction in the anaerobic ponds, the design load to the facultative ponds will be
17,100kg/d, requiring a total pond area of about 76ha during winter conditions. In
practice, the total area of facultative plus maturation ponds is 63ha. However, given the
fact that the average flow into the ponds is currently rather less than 50% of the design
flow, the facility should be performing satisfactorily 51.
Field studies carried out by IWMI revealed high concentrations of hookworm and ascaris,
two important helminth pathogens, in the influent to the treatment ponds. The performance
of the ponds in removing helminth eggs was worse than might have been expected. The
effluent was never free of helminth eggs and in four of the eight months of the investigation,
helminth egg concentrations in the effluent were actually higher than those in raw
wastewater. Taking pathogens individually, treatment was found to result in an 83%
reduction in ascaris eggs, from a mean of 142 eggs per litre in the influent to a mean of 21
eggs per litre in the effluent. In contrast, the mean number of hookworm eggs in the effluent
was actually higher than that in the influent (704 per litre as against 558 per litre).
The average E. coli concentration in the influent was 2 x 107 per 100ml, which is a typical
figure for raw sewage. Removal during the treatment process was typically 3 log to 5 log,
bringing the concentration down to the range 103 – 104 per 100ml, just above WHO
guidelines for wastewater to be used for unrestricted irrigation.
Taken together, these figures suggest that the main danger to health in both untreated and
treated wastewater comes from helminths. Other investigations by IWMI, referred to in the
51
These calculations are based on an average winter temperature of 14.2oC, based on analysis of Lahore data.
It has been assumed that temperatures for Faisalabad are similar. The ponds will, of course, perform much
better at other times of the year but for design purposes it is necessary to design on the basis of lowest
average temperatures
main text, reveal that workers in fields irrigated with wastewater are likely to have high levels
of helminth infections, both hookworm and ascaris.
Karachi
Karachi’s Treatment Plant No. 1 at SITE was being completely rehabilitated at the time of
the Balfour Maunsell report. Until then, the plant had never achieved its design objectives in
terms of treatment, sludge digestion, gas collection and power generation52. Monitoring had
been poor, as has been financial planning for the provision, operation and maintenance of
assets. Recent information provided by the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB)
provides the following information on existing wastewater treatment plants in Karachi
Location ‘Optimum’ design capacity Actual Treatment

Mgd Mgd
SITE 51 20
Mehmoodabad 46.5 30
Mauripur 54 40
It is not clear how KWSB arrived at their figures for optimum design capacity. It appears that
the strategy was to increase the flow to primary treatment, apparently by converting some
existing secondary clarifiers to provide primary treatment although this would render any
existing secondary treatment ineffective. The SITE and Mehmoodabad works, both of which
are based on trickling filter technology, each had an original design capacity of 20mgd.
KWSB refer to action taken to enhance flows into the works by diversion of wastewater from
storm drains, laying of sewer lines to complete missing links and carrying out refurbishment
work on the sewerage system but these all increase flow without increasing treatment
capacity. It seems probable that the ‘opt imum’ design capacity figures are unrealistically
high. Another source suggests that the capacity of the third plant is only 5mgd and that the
plants only function intermittently, giving a total operational capacity of only 30mgd 53.
Hyderabad
Recent information on the Hyderabad plants is limited. At the time of the Balfour Maunsell
report, the flow to the Southern plant was less than the design flow because some flow was
being diverted for irrigation and because sewer connections had not been made. The
Northern treatment plant had been completed in 1988 but had not been commissioned.
General findings of Balfour Maunsell report
1. None of the plants reviewed was operating to its true potential
52
The reference to gas generation suggests that the works included provision for sludge digestion. It is not
uncommon for sludge digestion tanks to be abandoned, even in developed countries like the UK
53
http://www.eeiu.org/chapters/multan/reports.html
2. In some cases, treatment potential was being wasted because of the inability of the
controlling agency to implement routine tasks such as emptying sludge from an aeration
tank.
3. Breaks in sewerage systems and failure to complete link sewers reduced the flow into
works and so reduced their effectiveness
4. Works were overstaffed but staff lacked essential knowledge and skills. In cities other
than Karachi, key posts were either not authorised or not filled.
5. Then theoretical total potential capacity of the plants was of the order of 60% of potential
sewage flow. However, the amount of sewage actually treated was probably less than
10% of total sewage flow. Because of poor performance, perhaps as little as 2% of the
pollution load generated from sewage generated in the four cities was being removed.
ANNEX (2)
COMPARISON OF SEWAGE TREATMENT OPTIONS
Land required per Power Operational Quality of effluent

person (m2) required skills
BOD Pathogens
required
Activated sludge 0.22 High High Good Poor
Oxidation ditch (and 0.3 Highest Fairly high Good Poor
other extended
aeration systems)
Trickling filter 0.33 Low if fall Fairly high Good Poor
available
Conventional rotating 0.2 Fairly low Fairly low Good Poor

biological contactors
Waste stabilisation 2.5 Low Low Medium Good (for

ponds (can be complete
high system)
Constructed wetlands 1.5 – 2 Low Fairly low Medium Medium to

to good good
Septic tanks <0.05 Low Low Medium Poor

But will normally
require secondary
treatment
Baffled reactors and <0.05 (but will Low Low Medium Poor
upward flow anaerobic normally require
filter secondary treatment)
UASBs 0.15 – 0.25 Low Medium Medium Poor
Depending on
secondary treatment
technology
The land requirements given above are approximate. Land requirement per person will tend
to decrease with increasing flow and size of plant.
ANNEX (3)
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIOUS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Basic assumptions
Processes designed on average temperature over the coldest three months of the year.
Based on meteorological data, a figure of 15 oC has been assumed. (Actual average is
14.2oC but assumed figure allows for some warming in recent years).
Per-capita biological load - 45gm BOD5 per day
Per-capita wastewater production 144 litres per person (80% of 180 litres per person water
consumption.
Preliminary treatment
Land is required for:

• Inlet pumping station
• Grit chamber and screens
Percentage of total land requirement will be greater for smaller works.
Based on Karnal and Chandigarh works
Chandigarh – grit chamber and screens 40m x 10m = 400m2
Design flow 5mld, say design population 5000/0.145 = approx 35000
Area required = 400/35000 = 0.012m2/person
Karnal UASB works – Area of grit chambers approximately 400m 2

Area of screens and pumping station approximately 25m x 15m = 375m2
Total – say 800m2 for design population of 40000/0.145, about 275,000.
Area required about 800/275000 = 0.003m2/person.
In practice, are required will be rather larger and provision also has to be made for
administrative buildings and laboratories.
Allow between 0.02 and 0.04m2 per person for these elements, decreasing with size of
works
Waste stabilisation ponds
Anaerobic ponds
Mara gives the following empirical design equations for anaerobic waste stabilisation ponds
Temperature Loading BOD

o
C (g/m3d) removal (%)
<10 100 40
10 to 20 20T – 100 2T + 20
20 to 25 10T +100 2T + 20
>25 350 70
Based on these equations, BOD allowable loading on anaerobic ponds will be 200gm/m 3d
and minimum BOD removal will be 50%.
For 4 metre deep pond, load per square metre area = 4 x 200 = 800gm.
Area required per person = 45/800 = 0.05625m2.
Allow 0.1 m2 per person, to include allowance for bunds around ponds.
Facultative and maturation ponds
There are a number of equations for the design of facultative waste stabilisation ponds. The
equation used for preliminary assessment of land requirements is Arthur’s equation:
Loading per hectare (kg) = 20T – 60
For temperature of 15 oC, this gives loading of 240kg/ha.
Maximum loading on pond = 50% of 45gm/cd = 22.5gm/cd
Area required per person = 22.5 x 10,000/ (240 x 1000) = 0.9375m2/person.
Allow 1.15m2 per person including allowance for bunds and access paths.
For preliminary planning purposes, assume that total area of maturation ponds is same as
area of facultative ponds.
So, total area required is as follows:

2
• Anaerobic ponds 0.1m /person
2
• Facultative ponds 1.15m /person
2
• Maturation ponds 1.15m /person
2
• Sludge drying, access etc 0.12m /person
TOTAL 2.52m2/person
Assuming 145 litres per person sewage flow, this equates to about 17.4m 2/m3d, which is
within the range quoted by Sato et al 7 – 19.1m2m3.d for flows in the range 2250 –
32,500m3/d.
Upward flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor

Reactor
Basic assumptions
Retention = 10 hours
Depth = 5 metres
This gives average upward flow velocity of 0.5m/sec
Allow maximum upward flow velocity of 1.2m/sec at peak flow (taken as 3dwf)
Peak flow condition is critical
Area required per person = 3 x 145/(1.2 x 24 x 1000) = 0.015m2 per person
Allow 0.02m2 per person including allowance for side channels etc.
Karnal – Design for 40,000mld, say 275000 population

4 ponds 24m x 32m – total area = 3072m2. Actual area covered approx 70m x 70m giving
total area of 4900m2.
Reactor area is approximately 0.011m2 per person
Area including access between reactors is about 0.018m2 per person
Take figure of 0.02m 2 per person
Secondary treatment
(a) Assume ‘polishing pond’ with 2 metres depth and 2 day retention.
Area required per person based on flow considerations:
= 0.145 x 2/(1000 x 2) = 0.145m – allow 0.165m2 per person including bunds etc.
Allow additional 0.12m2 per person for drying beds, access etc.
Total area requirement, including UASB, polis hing pond, drying beds etc = 0.3m2/person
(b) Assume trickling filters for secondary treatment

Assume hydraulic loading at average flow = 4m3/m2/d
Area required per person on basis of hydraulic loading = 145/(1000 x 4) = 0.036m2/person
Assume allowable loading of 0.15kg BOD/m3/d54, 60% BOD reduction in anaerobic ponds
and 1.8 metre deep filter, area required per person will be about 0.067m 2/person.
Biological loading critical.
54
Metcalf and Eddy give figure of 0.22kg BOD/m3/d and Mara suggests a lower figure of 0.1 kg BOD/m3/d for
single pass filters. The figure assumes single pass but increases loading above that allowed by Mara in view of
fact that temperature in Punjab higher than in temperate climate countries.
Allow additional 0.033m2 per person for settling tanks and allow factor of 1.3 because filters
and tanks are circular, total area required per person will be about 0.13m2
Allow additional 0.12m2 per person for drying beds, inlet works and access.
Total area required for anaerobic ponds followed by trickling filters is about 0.27m 2/person.
Conventional trickling filter works
Primary clarifiers
Design criteria based on Manual of British Practice in Water Pollution Control: Unit
processes, Primary Sedimentation
Assume depth = 4m
Flow = 40m3/m2 d at maximum flow – say 2.5dwf
So area required per person = 0.145 x 2.5/40 = 0.009m2/person per day. Allow for
0.013m2/pe assuming circular clarifiers have to be accommodated into a rectangular space.
(Escritt suggests 1.5 – 2m/hr at 3dwf, which gives a maximum rate of 36 – 48 m3/m2.d,
similar to the Manual of British Practice in Water Pollution Control figure. These figures
indicate that the upward flow velocity at dry weather flow should be in the range 0.5 – 0.67
m/hr.
Retention at maximum flow should not exceed 2 hours. This gives slightly lower land
requirement than flow velocity criterion.
These figures suggest that the land requirement for primary clarifiers is slightly less than that
for UASBs and significantly less than that for anaerobic waste stabilisation ponds.
However, because BOD/COD removal in a UASB or anaerobic WSP is likely to be greater

than that in conventional clarifiers, the area required for follow up secondary treatment will
be less.
The detention time for retangular horizontal flow tanks will normally be in the range 6 – 8
hours at the mean dry weather flow. (2 – 2.5 hours at maximum flow). For a 3 metre deep
tank, this will give a hydraulic loading in the range 0.4 – 0.5m3/m2. hr at dry weather flow,
which is slightly below that for circular tanks.
Filters
Design criterion – hydraulic loading for upflow clarifiers typically 32 - 48 m3/m2d.
Assume hydraulic loading at average flow = 40m3/m2d. equivalent to about 1.67 m3/m2.hr
Area required per person on basis of hydraulic loading = 145/(1000 x 4) = 0.036m2/person

Assume allowable loading of 0.15kg BOD/m3/d.55 and 1.8 metre deep filter, area required
per person will be about 0.067m2/person.
55
Metcalf and Eddy give figure of 0.22kg BOD/m3/d and Mara suggests a lower figure of 0.1 kg BOD/m3/d for
single pass filters. The figure assumes single pass but increases loading above that allowed by Mara in view of
fact that temperature in Punjab higher than in temperate climate countries.
Allowing for space around circular filter beds, area required is likely to be of the order of
0.1m2/pe.
Secondary clarifiers
Escritt suggests a maximum vertical flow velocity of 1 m/hr at dwf, approximately double that
for primary clarifiers. Based on this criteri on, the area requirement for secondary clarifiers
will be in the range 0.004 – 0.008 m2/pe for secondary clarifiers for flows in the range 100 -
200 litres per person per day.
Taken together, these figures suggest that the area required for a conventional trickling filter
works will be of the order of 0.33m2/pe, including allowance for preliminary treatment.
Conventional activated sludge works
The proposed French plant in Lahore has a land requirement is 15.5 hectares for design
population equivalent of 1 million and flow of 250,000m3/d. This gives total land requirement
of about 0.155m2/person equivalent or 620m2 per mld.
Indian experience suggests a land requirement in the range 0.73 -1.4m2/m3.d. At 145 litres
per person per day, this is equivalent to about 0.1 – 0.2 m 2/pe.
Sato et al suggest that the land requirement for a 72000m3/d ASP including primary
settlement is about 1.46m2/m3.d or 0.22m2/pe.
Chinese figure quoted by Sato et al is 34.3 x Q-0.332m2/m3.d. For flow of 5mld or 5000m3/d,
this gives land requirement of about 2m2/m2.d, which is higher than the Indian figure. For a
flow of 50,000m3/d, the requirement reduces to 0.95m2/m3.d or about 0.14m2/pe.
Figure based on Greek experience is 4.05 x PE-0.228. This gives figures in the range 0.40m 2
per person for 25000 population to 0.29m2 per person for a population of 100,000. These
figures are significantly higher than the figures for India and China.
Overall, it seems appropriate to take the figure quoted by Sato et al for Indian conditions,
which equates to about 0.22 m/pe.
Assuming a reactor depth of 4 metres, a retention time of 8 hours and per-capita wastewater
flow of 145l/cd, the area required per person is given by 0.145/(4 x 3) or about 0.012m2 per
person for the reactor itself. When allowance is made for secondary settling tanks and
preliminary treatment, the figure proposed for the French plant in Lahore seems reasonable.
Bibliography
BOOKS
Crites R and Tchobanoglous G (1998), Small and Decentralised Wastewater Management Systems,
Boston, WCB/McGraw‐Hill
Escritt L B (1972) Public Health Engineering Practice, Vol II Sewerage and Sewage Disposal, Fourth
Edition, London, Macdonald and Evans
Gutterer B, Sasse L and Reckerzügel T (2009), Decentralised Wastewater Treatment Systems
(DEWATS) and Sanitation in Developing Countries: A Practical Guide, Bremen, BORDA and
Loughborough, WEDC.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc (2003). Wastewater engineering, treatment and reuse, Fourth Edition New
York McGraw‐Hill
PAPERS
Blumenthal, U., Mara, D., Peasey, A., Ruiz‐Palacios, G. and Stott, R. (2000). Guidelines for the
microbiological quality of treated wastewater used in agriculture: Recommendation for revising thE
WHO guidelines. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78(9), 1104–1116
Chavez, A., Jimenez, B. and Maya, C. (2004). Particle size distribution as a useful tool for microbial
detection. Water Sci. Technol., 50(2), 179–186.
Ensink J, Mahmood T, van der Hoek W, Raschid‐Sally L and Amerasinghe A (2004) A nationwide
assessment of wastewater use in Pakistan: an obscure activity or a vitally important one, Water
Policy, 6 197‐206.
Ensink, Jeroen H. J; Mahmood, Tariq ; Dalsgaard, Anders (December 2007) Wastewater‐irrigated
vegetables: market handling versus irrigation water quality, Tropical Medicine & International
Health. Vol 12 Suppl. 2: pages 2 ‐ 7
Harleman D, Murcott S and Chagnon, F (Undated) Appropriate Wastewater Treatment in Developing
Countries, Experiences with CEPT
http://www.cd3wd.com/CD3WD_40/ASDB _SMARTSAN/DRFH_Experiences.pdf
Jiminez, B (2007) Helminth ova removal form wastewater for agriculture and aquaculture use,
Water, Science and Technology, 55, 1 ‐2, pp485 – 493, London, IWA Publishing
Khalil N, Sinha R, Raghav A and Mittal A (2008), UASB technology for sewage treatment in India:
Experience, economic evaluation and its potential in other developing countries, paper presented at
Twelfth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC12 2008, Alexandria, Egypt,
http://www.iwtc.info/2008_pdf/15 ‐3.PDF
Khowaja, A K (2000) Waste stabilisation ponds – design guidelines for Southern Pakistan, paper
presented at 26th WEDC Conference at Dhaka, Bangladesh –
http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/conferences/pdfs/26/Khowaja.pdf
Nidal, M, Zeerman G and van Liew J B (2008) Adapting High Rate Anaerobic Treatment to Middle
East Conditions, in Al Baz I, Otterpohl R and Wendland C (eds) Efficient Management of Wastewater:
Its Treatment and Reuse in Water‐scarce Countries, New York, Springer.
Sandino J (2004) Chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) and its applicability for large
wastewater treatment plants, Water Intelligence Online, IWA Publishing.
http://www.iwaponline.com/wio/2004/08/wio200408018.htm .
Sato N, Okubo T, Onodera T, Agrawal L K, Ohashi A and Harada H (2007) Economic evaluation of
sewage treatment processes in India, Journal of Environmental Management, 84(2007) 447 – 460.
Sato N, Okubo T, Onodera T, Ohashi A and Harada H (2006) Prospects for a self‐sustainable sewage
treatment system: A case study on full‐scale UASB systems in India’s Yamuna River Basin, Journal of
Environmental Management, 80, New York, Elsevier pp 198 – 207.
Von Sperling, C.A.L., Chernicharo, A.M.E. and Zerbini, A.M. (2002). Coliform and helminth eggs
removal in a combined UASB reactor – baffled pond system in Brazil: performance evaluation and
mathematical modelling. Water Sci. Technol., 45(10), 237–242.
REPORTS AND GUIDES
Arthur, J.P. (1983). Notes on the design and operation of waste stabilization ponds in warm climates
of developing countries. Technical paper No 7. Washington D.C: The World Bank.
Mara, D.D., Alabaster, G.P., Pearson, H.W. and Mills, S.W. (1992). Waste Stabilization Ponds: A
Design Manual for Eastern Africa. Lagoon Technology International. Leeds, England
Mara, D.D and Pearson, H.W. (1998). Design manual for waste stabilization ponds in Mediterranean
countries. European Investment Bank. Lagoon Technology International. Leeds, United Kingdom.
Van der Hoek W, Ul Hassan M, Ensink J, Feentra S, Raschid Sally L, Munir S, Aslam S, Ali N, Hussain R
and Matsuno Y (2002), Urban wastewater: A valuable resource for agriculture: A case study of
Haroonabad, Pakistan, Research Report 63, Colombo, Sri Lanka, International Water Management
Institute.
Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, India (2008) Evaluation of
Operation and Maintenance of Sewage Treatment Plants in India 2007, Delhi, CPCB
http://www.cpcb.nic.in/upload/NewItems/NewItem_99_5.pdf .
Wendland C and Albold A (2010) Sustainable and cost‐effective wastewater systems for rural and
peri‐urban communities up to 10,000 pe, WECF,
http://www.wecf.eu/english/articles/2010/03/guidancepaperfinalpdf.pdf
FACT SHEETS
EPA ‐ United States Environmental Protection Agency – (2002) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet:
Aerated, Partially Mixed Lagoons http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/apartlag.pdf

Complete Report PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Complete Report PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Urban Sector Policy & Management Unit 2010

PART 1 - EXISTING SITUATION

PART 2 – WASTEWATER TREA TMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND

Level of treatment required

Five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand at 20oC (BOD5) 80mg/l

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 150mg/l

Wastewater treatment processes

Stages in sewage treatment

Wastewater treatment normally involves the following:

1. Preliminary treatment – almost entirely physical in nature and intended to either

2. Primary treatment – predominantly physical in the form of sedimentation but including

3. Secondary treatment – predominantly biological in nature but often requiring

Preliminary treatment processes

Preliminary treatment processes normally include screening/maceration, flow balancing and

Primary treatment processes

Chemically enhanced processes

‘Extensive’ secondary treatment processes

‘Intensive’ aerobic secondary treatment processes

conventional activated sludge plants. Extended aeration technologies, which include

Moving bed biological reactors

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs)

Small and medium-sized towns

Large towns and cities

PART 4 – STRATEGY OPTIONS

Objectives and focus areas

Developing the information base

Developing and strengthening institutions

Section 2 provides a brief summary of existing drainage arrangements, providing information

Section 4 provides an overview of wastewater reuse arrangements, based largely on the

Section 5 provides information on environmental and health impacts of sewage treatment.

2. Existing drainage facilities

Figure 1 Wastewater pumping station in Tandlianwala, Faisalabad District

2.3 Larger towns and cities

Figure 2 – Septic tanks connected to unlined open drain in Faisalabad

3. Existing treatment facilities

3.1 Wastewater treatment in Punjab

Further information on the Islamabad and Faisalabad plants is given in Annex 1.

3.2 Wastewater treatment elsewhere in Pakistan

• Hayatabad, Peshawar Diffused air aerated lagoons followed by facultative and

3.3 Industrial treatment

3.4 Proposed and ongoing wastewater treatment initiatives

4. Present wastewater reuse practices

5. Environmental and health impacts

1.1 Objectives of treatment

There are two possible objectives for wastewater treatment:

1.2 Level of treatment required

Five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand at 20oC (BOD5) 80mg/l

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 150mg/l

1.3 Wastewater treatment processes

1.4 Stages in sewage treatment

Effective wastewater treatment is achieved by combining different types of wastewater

4. Preliminary treatment – almost entirely physical in nature and intended to either

5. Primary treatment – predominantly involving physical sedimentation but including

6. Secondary treatment – predominantly biological but may involve some physical

Preliminary Primary Secondary

Figure 3 Wastewater treatment stages and processes

2. Preliminary treatment processes

Screening options include the following:

2.2 Grit removal

Horizontal flow grit channels

2.3 Flow equalisation

Figure 4 Wet well arrangement without benching

Figure 5 Wet well arrangement with benching