Supporting consolidation, replication and up-scaling of sustainable wastewater treatment and reuse technologies for India

Final Report Summary - SARASWATI (Supporting consolidation, replication and up-scaling of sustainable wastewater treatment and reuse technologies for India)

Executive Summary:
The project SARASWATI aimed at evaluating existing decentralised wastewater treatment plants across India and piloting proven European technologies in selected locations. The framework for evaluation was based on two pillars, technical-environmental evaluation on the one side, and a socio-economic evaluation on the other. Based on the evaluation results, the knowledge was consolidated and integrated, and tools that shall support replication developed. In detail, the following work was carried out:
Work package 1: Update and refinement of documentation
This WP has resulted in a survey of over 1.500 decentralised wastewater treatment plants across India. Around 20 different technologies or technology groups were identified. Based on this survey, a sample of around 50 plants was selected for evaluation. Initially a qualitative evaluation was conducted. Based on the results of the qualitative evaluation, 15 plants have been selected for detailed evaluation in WP2 and partly in WP3.
Work package 2: Technical-environmental evaluation
WP2 has conducted a detailed technical and environmental evaluation of the 15 selected plants.
Work package 3: Social, economic and institutional evaluation
WP3 has conducted a detailed social, economic and institutional evaluation of up to 15 plants. In addition, a detailed study on the valuation of treated wastewater was conducted in 2 additional case studies in Tamil Nadu.
Work package 4: Piloting of selected EU technologies
In total 7 proven technologies were piloted in 8 locations across India. Trickling filters were piloted in two cities in Madhya Pradesh. A combination of UASB and High Rate Algae Pond was piloted at IIT Kharagpur in West Bengal. The innovative package plant Hy-SAF was piloted in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. The innovative grey-water recycling system GROW has been piloted at IIT Madras in Tamil Nadu. A ballasted flocculation technology for stormwater treatment has been piloted in Nainital, Uttarakhand. A mobile anaerobic sludge digester with the potential of reusing energy for cooking, heating or cooling has been piloted at IIT Karagphur, West Bengal. Finally, a closed composting system for treatment of sludge has been piloted in Mumbai, Maharasthra.
Work package 6: Tools for replication and up-scaling
Based on the evaluation results general guidelines for technology application and detailed guidelines for design of selected evaluated technologies were elaborated. Further, recommendations for reuse and effluent standards for Indian conditions were developed. In addition, a software based decision support tool, Wisdom, was developed to support planners in selecting suitable technologies.
Work package 7: Dissemination

Project Context and Objectives:
Population growth, increasing urbanization and rapid economic development are exerting pressure on the already scarce water resources in India. Even though water resources are not scarce if looking at the total available water volumes, the precipitation is highly variable in time and space. A recent newspaper Article in the Times of India (September 2013) highlighted that 22 of India’s 32 big cities face acute water crises. Further, lack of wastewater treatment causes high environmental pollution. A recent study has shown that the main source of pollution of the Ganga, which covers 26 per cent of the nation’s area, is human waste. It is estimated that one million cubic metres of domestic wastewater is discharged every day, causing hygiene and environmental risks. Several studies have demonstrated the high economic losses related to environmental and water pollution caused by the lack of adequate wastewater management. Hence, treatment and reuse of wastewater can play an important role in addressing some of the water challenges in India.
Similar water challenges have occurred in Europe: Also in Europe freshwater resources are unevenly distributed. The temporal or regional water scarcity is caused by increasing population density, diffused pollution, unreliable precipitation, short-term population increases due to tourism, and increased demand for irrigation to improve agricultural productivity. The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (Article 12, UWWTD, 1991) called on the member states to reuse treated water “whenever appropriate”, and numerous examples of wastewater reuse for different purposes are documented. Moreover, in Europe existing settlement structures, which favoured centralised solutions, have been rethought and decentralised wastewater treatment consisting of smaller treatment units for several houses or smaller settlements are becoming increasingly popular. Various examples illustrate how alternative systems can be implemented in developed economies. Their use is not only limited to rural areas and developing countries with a lack of infrastructure, but they are also used in an urban context in developed countries.
Hence, there is great potential for beneficial co-operation between the European Union (EU) and India in the field of innovative decentralised wastewater treatment and management. Further, over the last decade hundreds of decentralised wastewater treatment plants of different technology types have been installed all over India. However, not all are functioning well and several also failed, due to various reasons. Also, there is no consolidated evaluation and review of all those existing plants available.
Against this background, SARASWATI pursues the following objectives:
1. To provide a comprehensive documentation of existing wastewater treatment technologies in India
2. To conduct an independent and integrated assessment of the existing technologies in India
3. To pilot proven EU technologies that have the potential to solve real water challenges in India
4. To suggest strategies for measures to further improve the sustainability of both EU and non-EU technologies for solving water challenges in India and to assess the overall potential of all of the technologies
5. To provide tools to facilitate replication and large-scale deployment of the technologies with the best potential to cope with the targeted real life water problems in India
6. To synthesise the research results and to achieve effective dissemination and take-up in practice, and the mainstreaming of results
The conceptual framework of Saraswati is based on two dimensions: technology and socio-economy. The technological dimension encompasses all aspects related to the physical functioning and performance of the technology, such as its treatment capacity, environmental impact, technical robustness of the system. Hygienic issues are also most relevant for re-use systems. Therefore, hygienic along with health impact assessment will be component of the technical perspective. The socio-economic dimension encompasses all aspects related to the use of the technology, such as user acceptance, affordability, management institutional part will also have a focus on planning and governance, which are crucial for achieving sustainable solutions.
SARASWATI symbolises the notion that sustainable wastewater management can only be achieved if both pillars are adapted to each other. Hence, the encounter of the physical aspects of the technology and the socio-economic dimension of its use can create either risks or opportunities for sustainable service provision. It is obvious that with higher technical complexity and closeness to or distance from local culture and traditions the risks for the provided service also increase (but at the same time new opportunities evolve). Therefore, particularly if EU technologies are transferred to India, a thorough evaluation of both the technical and the socio-economic dimensions are of vital importance for achieving sustainable solutions to real water problems in India.

Project Results:
3.1 WP1: Update and refinement of documentation
The scope of WP1 was primarily defined as updating and refining existing documentations of technologies for treatment and reuse of municipal and household wastewater in India.
The different technologies used for wastewater treatment and reuse were firstly identified after a bibliographic survey. Indian partners have contacted suppliers of wastewater treatment plant as well as governmental institutions at the State level. A thorough inventory of decentralized wastewater treatment plants was then made in close interaction with the Indian partners. A database was created to organise all the information for every identified wastewater treatment plant (1539), i.e. the geographic coordinates, the end user, the total capacity of the plant, the type of incoming water and the type of technology and its description in steps, the presence or absence of reuse, the date of construction, etc. A Geographic Information System was also created to better represent the geographical repartition of the plants. The information has then been summarised into deliverable D1.1
A list of case studies for qualitative evaluation has been selected. The selection has been based on the survey of existing wastewater treatment plants under task 1. As knowledge gaps exist in particular with smaller scale treatment plants, it was discussed and agreed among the consortium to choose only plants which have a size below 5 MLD. The selection followed the methodology described in the DOW and the selection criteria agreed during the project start workshop, however, access to the WWTP and permission to take samples were key critera for the final selection.

The documentation has shown that various types of wastewater treatment technologies have already been implemented at different sizes across India. The majority of these technologies have been implemented by private real estate developers, housing societies, colonies, institutional and commercial areas and non-polluting industries which do not discharge process wastewater for the separate treatment of sewage. In addition, there are several treatment plants implemented by municipalities.
The studied technologies correspond to four main groups of areas: (1) Rural Areas with cheaper land availability and package on-site septic systems for all areas; (2) Rural Areas and peri-urban areas with cheaper limited space; (3) Peri-Urban areas with expensive and limited space; (4) Peri-Urban areas with expensive and limited space and strict effluent quality. The decentralized sewage treatment plants are mainly found in rural areas with cheaper land availability (39 %).
The total capacity of the documented sewage treatment plants varies greatly between 0.0002 to 635 mld. The survey has shown that there is very limited or no evaluation of the performance, in particular of smaller scale plants, available. Saraswati will continue with an integrated evaluation of selected smaller scale wastewater treatment plants to provide some scientific evidence of the actual performance of these plants in India.
3.2 WP 2: Technical-environmental evaluation
3.2.1 Introduction
Based on the results of WP1, 58 case studies were qualitatively evaluated (“Sample 1”) and based on the results of the qualitative evaluation 15 plants were selected for the detailed technical-environmental evaluation (“Sample 2”). The following results refer to the detailed evaluation of 15 plants, ie Sample 2. Details can be found in deliverable D2.1 D2.2 and D2.3.
3.2.2 Technical/chemical performance evaluation
The focus of this evaluation was on the physicochemical water quality of the effluents, taking into account the influent characteristics and the technology. An additional evaluation of the effluents and the sludge was conducted for the environmental system analysis (see the subsection below). The overall goal of the assessment was the support of ULBs by the identification of national reference plants for each water quality criterion.
Influent characterisctics: The average concentrations in the influent corresponded to a low loaded municipal wastewater (European Standards) except in the case studies 3, 4 and 10 which values exceed average municipal wastewater values.
Treatment performance: There are a close relationship between the efficiency of the system to produce an effluent with a low TSS concentration and the whole efficiency of the treatment system. Thus MBR system (case study 11) achieves very low TSS concentration in the effluent and at the same time has the best values in COD, BOD and N in the effluent. Similarly in case studies 12-15 TSS in the effluent are under 30 mg/L and the COD and BOD concentrations have also low values.
As a general rule we can point that case studies with a lower influent load, even with lower removal rates, get a better effluent characteristics independently of the treatment technology. Thus case studies 1,8,12,13,14 and 15 achieves a good effluent characteristics close to EU standards in most of the measured parameters by using very different treatment lines, from aerated lagoons to SBR and using in some case studies combined tertiary treatment without any tertiary treatment in others (case study 14). On the other hand in case studies 3,4 and 10 treatment technologies are not able to handle high organic loads in influent wastewater even with high removal rates. This general rule cannot be applied to some case studies (2, 5, 6 and 7) where even with low loads in the influent wastewater the treatment performance was poor. In these case studies, as mentioned above, a high biological solid release from treatment compromises the whole treatment efficiency.
Except in the case of MBR technology in which treatment technology is directly related to effluent quality, there are not a clear relationship between treatment technology and effluent quality: there are case studies using similar technologies with a different performance as can be seen in case studies 2 and 8 (extended aeration). In other case studies the treatment performance of similar treatment lines are equivalent (case studies 6 and 10, Anaerobic filter and case studies 4,8 and 13 MBBR technology).
In case studies 1,2 and 4 performance of biological treatment has been studied separately from the whole treatment efficiency, showing a poor performance (40-50% case study 1, 30-40% case study 2 and 60-70% case study 4). It is difficult to come to conclusions because two of the case studies (1 and 2) low efficiency treatment technologies (aerated lagoons and extended aeration) are used and in case study 4 influent wastewater has a high load in terms of TSS and COD.
With the exception of case study 3 in which removal rates are comparable to aerobic treatment lines, anaerobic treatment technologies shown lower performance rates than aerobic ones.
Treatment technologies performances are comparable to those reported in literature although comparison is not easy because most of the treatment in the case studies combined several treatment technologies and tertiary treatment. Thus although removal rates of COD and BOD could be in the range of reported in literature, TSS in effluent wastewater are too high in those case studies which includes a tertiary treatment with sand filtration or AC filtration.
N removal percentages obtained in aerobic treatment case studies shows that only in case studies 2, 3 and 11 a stable nitrification is attained where in the other case studies only a partial or inhibited nitrification takes place with low N removal percentages and high ammonia effluent values.
3.2.3 Hygiene and health impact assessment
Although reuse is a sustainable practice (considering water scarcity in many parts of India), reuse of effluents not satisfying legal standards can cause hygienic concerns. Except for two plants, all 15 plants of sample II reused part of the effluents for irrigation (gardening, food crop) or toilet flushing; two plants also reused the sludge as fertilizer (the others disposed it at municipal dumps). For sample I, 38 of 58 plants reused the effluents (18 did not, 2 unknown).
This issue was analysed for sample II. There was a high variability of the faecal coliforms count of the inflow, but the effluents of the STPs in general either consistently satisfied the new legal threshold or not. In the latter case the STPs often did not even satisfy the old threshold, although the pathogen load of the effluents could have been significantly reduced by adding a disinfection unit. (However, operators may consider disinfection as wasted effort, if the effluents are discharged e.g. into heavily polluted rivers.)
Consequently, amongst nine decided STPs the data for sample II allowed to identify only one candidate technology with respect to pathogen removal, namely aerated lagoons (AL) with chlorination. STPs with low faecal coliform concentrations of 103 to 104 MPN/100 mL in the inflow (compared to 107 MPN/100 mL elsewhere) were assessed as undecided (e.g. MBR).
The health risks from the reuse of effluents that fulfil the new Indian standard of 100 MPN faecal coliforms per 100 mL was assessed as follows. First, using literature values the ingested volumes of reused water were assessed, estimating (a) 1 mL liquid ingestion from sprinkler irrigation and (b) 0.0019 mL aerosol ingestion from toilet flushing. This translated into the intake of 1 MPN respectively 0.0019 MPN of faecal coliforms. Consumers of raw food crop (e.g. lettuce) irrigated with effluents may swallow up to 5 mL of treated wastewater. Then, for (a) using the last column of Table 5 Dose–response models for selected pathogens, the intake of the most relevant pathogens and the resulting risk of an infection was estimated.
By these models for Enterococci, a person passing by during the sprinkler irrigation of a public lawn (park, schoolyard) with effluents just satisfying the legal threshold may ingest 1 mL polluted water, corresponding to the dose of up to D = 1 MPN Enterococci. The infection risk from a single exposure to this dose is p = 0.56% (last column of Table 5 Dose–response models for selected pathogens). It follows with 95% probability that at least one in 530 persons passing by during irrigation might suffer from an infection (binomial distribution with p = 0.56% and n = 530). Similarly, with 95% probability, within one year at least one person from 50 households using effluents for toilet flushing might suffer from an infection (assuming 5 persons per household and 3 flushes per person in a day and 365 days per year).
Such risks from effluent reuse may be inacceptable. In particular, if effluents from hospitals are recycled, there is a risk of the exposure to Enterococci strains that are resistant to multiple antibiotics. For comparison, in some countries water reused for toilet flushing, irrigation of gardens or irrigation of food crop must be free of pathogens. Other countries prohibited the very reuse of effluents.
3.2.4 Environmental systems analysis
For sample II, an integrated assessment of the whole sanitation systems (technical systems plus reuse of products) used life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology.
Using LCA software, the onsite data were collected in life cycle inventories that were completed with data from the Eco-Invent database. Based on GaBi 6 software (Thinkstep®), and for the simplification of reading, environmental impacts were aggregated into single scores (ReCiPe 1.08 H/A excl. biogenic carbon - endpoint world normalization). Thereby, taking into account reuse of water and sludge, for six technologies impact-scores (lower is better) per 1 m3 of treated wastewater of their STPs was by at least 80% lower than the scores for STPs of other technologies. These technologies were AF, DEW/B, DEW/O, MBR,
On-An, and Vortex. MBBR had high and low score plants.
3.3 WP 3: Socio-economic evaluation
3.3.1 Social and institutional evaluation
The SARASWATI project is a collaboration of European partners funded by the European Commission and of Indian partners funded by the government of India, whereby the two project parts proceeded at a different pace. The social and institutional evaluation was still ongoing in India, when the European project closed on 31.05.2017. The present analysis is based on the then available results.
Method: In order to attain a comprehensive picture of social and institutional functioning of the STPs, quantitative as well as qualitative data were collected. For social and institutional evaluation, case studies were chosen to unravel the perception of all stakeholders directly or indirectly to the STP in order to obtain a comprehensive picture. Therefore, the case study selection (by TISS) for the social and institutional evaluation was somewhat different from the selection for the other work packages. This is explained below.
Purposive sampling method was used to select respondents for filling the questionnaire as the intention was to capture the awareness and acceptance level of people towards wastewater treatment (WWT) and reuse. Data was collected through in-depth interviews and group discussions with plant management, employees, community members, and end users. Questionnaires were used with visitors or general public to assess their approach towards WWT and reuse. Tools used for qualitative data collection (in-depth interview guide and group discussion guide) were prepared in advance, however, they were flexible to incorporate the changes during data collection. Questionnaires were prepared as per the nature of the respondents (visitors, residents, employees).
To assess the institutional and social situation the following aspects were considered;
• the institutional background for the governance of the STPs,
• the purpose of installing them, the used technology and the process of WWT,
• the working conditions of the employees of the STP,
• the reuse of treated wastewater (TWW) and of other STP-products and the quality monitoring,
• the awareness and acceptance of the STP and the reuse of its products by the stakeholders and users,
• their participation in plant-related decision-making,
• the environmental and societal benefits of recycling,
• and the economic viability.
In order to avoid duplication of the above discussed results, this section focuses on those criteria, where technology-specific differences could be expected, such as e.g. the safety for workers or possible nuisances for the neighbours. Aspects that apply to all types of WWT technology (e.g. social responsibility for the health of residents) were discussed with users and stakeholders to assess their awareness, but these aspects are not considered here.
Results are summarized below for each case study.
The following STPs were not selected for social and institutional analysis: case study 2 (EA at JSS College of Engineering, Bangalore, Karnataka), case study 5 (DEW/O at Parnshree Green, Behala, Kolkata, West Bengal), case study 6 (AF at South City, Kharagpur, Kolkata, West Bengal), case study 7 (EA at DLF Building, Kharagpur, Kolkata, West Bengal), case study 8 (MBBR at Greenfield City, Behala, Kolkata, West Bengal), case study 10 (On-An at Navodya School, Shikarpur, Roorkee, Uttarakhand), and case study 15 (DEW/B at Sane Guruji Hospital, Hadapsar, Pune, Maharashtra).
Case study 1 (AL at IIT Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu). The STP was built as a research initiative to promote research and development of treatment and reuse technologies, but fulfilling the legal provisions of Tamil Nadu for pollution control. The STP is managed by a contractor on behalf of the IIT, with quality checks by IIT. The contractor is also responsible for end-of-life management. There were concerns about secure working conditions (no safety gloves provided for workers). There was no stakeholder or user participation in decision making and low awareness of users was observed (most inquired students did not know about the STP). User acceptance towards recycling (using TWW for toilet flushing) was mixed amongst students, but the goal of water saving by recycling TWW in a city suffering from water scarcity was accepted in general.
Case study 3 (Vortex at Solar Kitchen, Auroville, Pondicherry, Puducherry). The spiritual organization running the STP (CSR) denied permission for the social and institutional evaluation.
Case study 4 (MBBR at L&T, ECC Division, Manapakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu). The STP was built to fulfil a legal obligation, but without stakeholder participation. L&T Constructions funded the STP and it is operated by ECC (Eco Care Engineering Systems) that takes care of ensuring secure working conditions. With respect to technology-related social indicators, awareness regarding recycling was present amongst interviewed stakeholders, but acceptance for the STP was low amongst residents, who requested to prevent everyday view of the STP from the balconies and windows. EEC employees found reuse of TWW for toilet flushing as acceptable.
Case study 9 (SAFF at Silver Spring Apartments, Kolkata, West Bengal). Governance was exceptional, as despite the high capital costs the STP was installed by a private person for reuse at the basement of a shopping mall and financed the private person provided also the running costs. While there was no role for stakeholders in decision making, their feedback has been requested about the operation. With respect to secure working conditions, there were concerns: Safety gadgets were in place, but it was difficult for the workers to move due to low ceiling level and the odour from the wastewater inlet pump was uncomfortable for the workers. Further, there were no women in the workforce. Stakeholders were aware of and accepted the practice of recycling.
Case study 11 (MBR at Akshardham, Commonwealth Village, New Delhi, Capital District). The plant was built to fulfil a legal obligation, but without stakeholder participation in decision-making. The STP is managed by Delhi Jal Board and Delhi Development Board, whereby O&M was outsourced to a technical solutions company (also responsible for the end-of-life management) and Delhi Jal Board supports the O&M cost. Working conditions were secure and highly agreeable. Stakeholders were aware of recycling and accepted it.
Case study 12 (SBR at Swarg Ashram, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand). The STP was constructed by Uttarakhand Jal Nigam and it is operated by Uttarakhand Jal Sanshthan. There was no participation of stakeholders in decision making. Further, the residents and visitors were not involved in any process of the STP. Working conditions were safe, but as the STP is on the banks of river Ganga, the refreshment amenities were poor. Further, there were no female employees. Not all interviewed community members were aware of the STP, but in general they accepted it for the need of environmental protection.
Case study 13 (MBBR at Nirvana Park, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra). The STP is funded and owned by Hiranandani Developers and maintained by its mechanical division. Working conditions were safe. There is no participation of stakeholders in plant activities, but regular feedback is collected. Stakeholders are aware of recycling and accepted it.
Case study 14 (SBT at Love Grove, Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra). The STP is managed by the municipal corporation and O&M is outsourced to a contractor. Stakeholders had no role in decision making and there was no feedback mechanism in place for users. Contact with the public was not sought after due to absence of policy framework on the public participation. With respect to secure working conditions, although the plant is in the compound of the largest pumping station of Mumbai city, there was only limited use of safety gadgets. Workers complained of contact with wastewater in terms of breathing the gases from the free flow of wastewater. Stakeholders were aware of recycling and accepted reuse for non-potable purposes.
Case study 16 (EA, Melmaruvathur WWT Plant, Chennai, TN). The plant was built with the approval of the Panchayat and it was managed by a religious trust. Working conditions were poor, with no safety gadgets and first aid box available in the plant. Employees are provided comparatively low salaries, lack of social security measures (ESI, PF, or any health insurance), no paid leaves and sick leaves, and no drinking water facility and bathrooms in the plant premises. There were no female employees. With respect to further assessment, the trust denied permission to approach stakeholders.
Case study 17 (DEW/B, Muktangan tribal hostel, Narodi, Pune). The STP was maintained by a NGO, Maharashtra Arogya Mandal. Working conditions were safe with minimal human exposure to wastewater. The interviewed villagers and students living in the hostel were aware of the STP. The STP and the recycling for agricultural use was well accepted by the respondents.
Case study 18 (EA, Lavasa Hill City, Pune, Maharashtra). The STP was installed by Lavasa Corporation (as per Factories Act) and O&M was outsourced to a technological solutions company (responsible also for the end-of-life management). There was no participation of community members in the management of the STP. Residents could inquire at an information center, but no regular feedback was collected. As to the working conditions, in order to avoid contact with the public, the STP was constructed away from the main city circle. There were no female employees. Stakeholders were aware of recycling and accepted non-potable reuse of TWW, but visitors were not aware of the STP.
Conclusion: Working conditions at STPs were not always safe and stakeholder participation and interaction with users was rarely sought for. For users, affordability was a problem (as discussed above), but otherwise they accepted all STPs. Further, there were some problems with residents, who were unhappy with the sight of a STP in their neighborhood. This could have been resolved easily by camouflaging. For other stakeholders, maintenance and quality of the TWW were issues. For instance, the use of TWW for toilet flushing was not always accepted (hygienic analysis in section 4.2); this could reduce the expected contribution to cost recovery from the revenues of TWW sales.
However, these social and institutional problems were not specific for any technology. Thus, with respect to the social and institutional criteria of this section, no technology could be recommended or excluded from further consideration. The outcomes rather seemed to indicate, that it may matter, who operates a STP, regardless of the option of outsourcing the actual operational tasks. Religious institutions appeared to be apprehensive and unwilling to interact with the TISS project team.
3.3.2 Economic and financial evaluation
3.3.2.1 NPV analysis of capital and running costs
Data: Capital costs (construction) of 47 plants (from 2003-2013) and running costs (O&M) of 14 plants (from fiscal year 2013-14, except for plants near Chennai: 2014-15) were inquired from the plant operators. It was more difficult to obtain running costs, as e.g. different municipal departments were involved (employees may work also for gardening, costs for energy is paid from a different budget) and other plants did not operate for the whole year (e.g. no operation in monsoon). While for all 58 plants of sample I the capacity and for 47 plants also capital costs and number of users were known, full cost information was available only for 14 plants of sample II. The raw data were reported in Deliverable D 3.2.
Methods: The raw data for capital costs and running costs were adjusted to 2015 Rupees, i.e. INR (Rupees) of the fiscal year 2015/16, using the wholesale price index WPI (Government of India, 2016) for all commodities.
In order to take care of system size and to remove outliers, costs were compared with norm-costs: Low cost systems were identified from a low ratio of observed (time-adjusted) costs to norm-costs. Thereby, system size was given by the number x of users and the capacity y (in m3/day) of daily treated wastewater. Norm-costs were based on power functions a·xb and c·yd of system-size. These power functions were derived from regression lines in log-log-plots, thus relating the logarithms of costs to the logarithms of the number of users and similarly the logarithms of costs to the logarithms of capacities (formulas in the respective table captions). The method is explained in deliverable D 3.2. Both cost estimates were used, as e.g. wastewater volume per user is higher for STPs designed for the combined treatment of grey and black water than e.g. for onsite systems designed solely for black water treatment. Therefore, norm-costs were defined as the maximum of the cost estimates from these two power functions.
In order to aggregate and compare capital and running costs, net present value (NPV) was used with a 12% discount rate over a time span of 15 years. These settings differ from those currently used in Europe, but they have been used in literature and in recent appraisals of projects in India and other Asian countries. Running costs were aggregated to NPV and capital costs were expressed as annuity; in Excel-notation
NPV of running costs = −PV(12%; 15; time adjusted running costs; 0; 1)
annualized capital costs = −PMT(12%; 15; time adjusted capital costs; 0; 1)
The judgment, which systems were least costly, was based on total annualized costs (annualized capital costs plus yearly running costs) per user.
Results: There was a high variability of time adjusted capital costs per user. Part of it was due to a wide range of system sizes; it could be taken care of by using norm-costs. Further, utilization varied (12-406 litres/user and day; median 108), giving rise to concerns about possibly undersized systems, defined by a capacity below daily domestic water needs of 100 litres/user. As undersized systems for obvious reasons cost less per user, such systems were not used as benchmarks.
Amongst 47 systems with data, capital costs of four MBBRs and of four other STPs (technologies AF, CA, EA, and SAFF) were both significantly below the averages (i.e. below the lower confidence limits) of the estimated capital costs of other STPs with the same number of users and the same volumetric capacities (kilolitres/day), respectively. The least ratio of capital costs to norm-costs was 13% for a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR: 12,000 users, 1,600 m3/day, 133 litres/user) and for an undersized onsite anaerobic system;
The same approach, using norm-costs, was applied for the running costs (O&M), but with a smaller data base (sample II). Amongst 14 systems with data, only undersized systems achieved running costs per user below the average. However, for the running costs per kilolitre four STPs were significantly below the average for systems with the same capacities: the two MBBRs with data and two other technologies (AL, SBT). Thus, for these STPs running costs were 65% or less of norm costs. DEW/O had exceptionally high (above the upper prediction limit) running costs per kilolitre (it was undersized).
For total annualized costs, amongst 14 systems only for the two MBBRs total costs were significantly below the average both in comparison to STPs with the same number of users and the same capacities in kilolitres/day. Their TAC was 50% of norm costs or lower. Two more technologies (AF and SAFF) were significantly below the average for costs per kilolitre/day.
Several technically enhanced constructed wetlands (vortex, DEW/B and DEW/O) had costs significantly above the averages for STPs of the same sizes (number of users and/or kilolitres/day). This was insofar surprising, as constructed wetlands can be managed by local farmers and have only low energy costs. However, on closer inspection even in the rural setting there may be additional land-use costs, as for small-scale farms natural treatment of water for irrigation may amount to 3-10% profit losses due to the loss of arable land (Starkl et al., 2015b).
Conclusion: In terms of costs, MBBR and SBT were most promising. Natural treatment systems enhanced by modern technologies were more expensive than initially expected.
Detailed information can be found in deliverable D3.2.
3.3.2.2 Assessment of affordability
Method: For the judgment, if a system was affordable for the poor, a fictitious ‘sanitation tax’ per user was computed (sum of annual running and of 10% of the annualized capital costs, computed per user and month), ranging between 2 to 199 INR/user. A system was affordable, if this ‘sanitation tax’ was at most 10 INR/month per user; this is explained below.
The computation of the fictitious user contribution was based on the following consideration: In India, and similarly in other developing countries, 90% or more of the capital costs of a new system are funded (Government and international donors), while the users pay the remaining 10% of capital costs and all running costs. Thereby, the 10% contribution to capital costs was expressed as an annuity and to this the annual running costs were added.
To assess the affordability for poor users, the expected contribution of users (‘sanitation tax’) was compared with the typical water tax in the range of 50 INR per month and household and the typical household size of 5-7 persons. Thus, for households in poor neighbourhoods a monthly ‘sanitation tax’ of more than 10 INR/user in addition to the water tax was considered as challenging (i.e. for each household 50-70 INR sanitation tax plus 50 INR water tax per month). This was confirmed by willingness-to-pay surveys in Burhanpur and Raisen (Madhya Pradesh), estimating 100 INR/month as optimal combined water and sewerage charge for households (see the above cited paper and deliverable D 3.5). Even for such a small charge, several of the mostly poor households could not even afford the water tax to obtain tapped water and amongst those, who could, many could not afford an additional fair share for sanitation. Further, in addition to water and sanitation charges users may have to pay for new sewer connections (not considered in the fictitious contribution).
Results and conclusion: Summarizing, a monthly ‘sanitation tax’ to finance the annual running costs and 10% of the annualized capital costs was in the range of 4 to 199 INR/user. However, only undersized STPs were clearly affordable (AL, On-An). With a monthly sanitation tax of 11-13 INR/user, moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR) and soil biotechnology (SBT) were closest to affordability (the EA with this sanitation tax was undersized).
Notably, AF and SAFF had STPs with exceptionally low capital costs, but these systems were not affordable (48 to 51 INR); this was due to the high weight of the running costs in affordability assessments. Thus, funding institutions may have to find a compromise between the goal of low per capita capital costs of a technology, as this enables them to fund more projects, and low running costs for the users, as in the long term excessive running costs may impede the success of funding (e.g. lacking maintenance may result in shorter project lifetimes and lower pollutant removal efficiency).
3.3.3 Socio-economic evaluation (of WTP)
The purpose of this task has been to evaluate farmers’ willingness to use (WTU) and to pay (WTP) for treated wastewater, and to elicit consumers’ willingness to use and to pay for products irrigated with treated wastewater. It also planned to assess the non-market value of recycled water for reuse (i.e. external benefits of reuse).The study sites aimed at different objectives:
3.3.3.1 Consumers’ preference for wastewater treatment
In Chennai (Tamil Nadu), the consumer’s preference for wastewater treatment has been evaluated. The study case attempted to investigate whether the households’ are willing to pay for improvements in the capacity and level of treatment of wastewater using CVM in Chennai. A questionnaire was established and tested. Face-to-face interviews were limited at 205 households. This new case study planned to assess the non-market environmental benefits of four wastewater treatment programs (including status-quo). The non-market benefits of additional WW treatment service are the contribution to preserving the river’s ecological status and population health. A questionnaire was establied and tested. The Chennai case study has proven that the local population obtains significant social non-market benefits from this form improvement service, expressed via the willingness to increase the amount of money paid for this purpose. An average WTP value of Rs 43 per month per household was calculated. This implies that the population is willing to almost increase the treatment charge that is currently added to the water and sewerage tax.
3.3.3.2 Economic viability of alternative options for water management
The Comboitore district (Tamil Nadu) is one of the water-starved region in India where the surface water potential has been fully tapped with an increasing pressure on groundwater exploitation. The objectives of the work were to assess the economic viability of alternative option for water management by (1) eliciting stakeholders’ perception and knowledge in using wastewater for irrigation with a multi-criteria analysis using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) to assess the multifunctional benefits of wastewater recycling, and (2) capturing the total economic value of these benefits of wastewater reuse in agriculture by conducting the CVM based on surveys of stakeholders and farm households. The average willingness to pay (WTP) by farmers for getting treated wastewater is 54 Rupees/year for scenario B and the overall average WTP by farmers is 165 Rupees/year. More interstingly, farmers having less than one acres of land are willing to contribute maximum of Rs.127/per year with statistically significant and backward classes farmers are ready to contribute more for using treated wastewater and it is statistically significant.
3.3.3.3 Communities acceptability of wastewater reuse
Still in Comboitore, a deep analysis aimed at evaluating the communities acceptability of wastewater reuse over a range of stakeholders (government officials, academicians, researchers, farmers and general public) and then to assess the economics benefits of reusing wastewater, as part of economic viability valuation of this water management option. For this purpose, we developed a multi-criteria analysis using Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) to assess the preference of alternative methods of wastewater reuse within the different categories of stakeholders. The results indicate a preference for groundwater recharge followed by reuse for irrigation. To perceive more specifically the farmers’ preference for wastewater reuse for irrigation, the contingent valuation method (CVM) has been conducted to capture the benefits for reuse in agriculture over 105 representative farm households. The main results show that 90% of the farmers are willing to pay for recycled wastewater and accept to use it as an alternative option. The average willingness to pay by farmers for getting treated wastewater amounts to Rs56 per year.
3.3.3.1 Meta-analysis of willingness to pay estimates
Finally, a systematic and comprehensive review of available empirical studies that assessed individual willingness to pay estimates of recycled wastewater is presented. Over the past few years, several empirical studies have estimated the economic benefits of treating and reusing wastewater for different purposes and in different countries. This work has resulted in an expanded data pool potentially usable for evaluating the social and economic implications of wastewater investments, particularly those incorporating reuse projects. Using a meta-analysis method (MA), we investigated the results of 84 WTP estimates from 22 international studies covering 12 countries. From our general metaregression model, we estimated the mean WTP for recycled wastewater at US$ 52.62 per household/per-year. We find that WTP can vary in a systematic and predictable way with respect to key factors that determine an individual’s WTP for recycled water, such as socioeconomic and contextual characteristics as well as the individuals’ attitudes and perceptions concerning recycled water. We demonstrate that such categories of variables are important for the potential use of MA for value transfer. This finding can be useful to inform and guide research and development on future empirical valuation studies, and to facilitate the use of value-transfer methods through the MA model.
Detailed information can be found in deliverable D3.3.
3.4 WP 4: Pilot studies
3.4.1 Technical evaluation
A compiled report on evaluation results of seven pilot studies was prepared (Deliverable D2.4). The main objective of this task was to carry out a technical evaluation, a hygienic and health impact assessment and an environmental analysis of each pilot technology:
Pilot 2: UASB/Pond combination for black water treatment (Kharagpur)
Pilot 3: HYSAF package wastewater treatment plant (Rishikesh)
Pilot 4: GROW grey-water recycling system and hybrid system
Pilot 5: Actiflo strom-water treatment system (Nainital)
Pilot 6: Mobile anaerobic sludge digestor (Kharagpur)
Pilot 7: Closed vessel composting system (Mumbai)
The main conclusions obtained in the evaluation were:
Pilot 2, UASB/Pond combination for black water treatment : The data provided by the Indian partners was enough to do a technical evaluation, but it was not possible to carry out the hygienic and health impact. As main conclusions, wastewater contains many organic and inorganic nutrients, which are discharged into water streams causing environmental pollution and health hazards. UASB reactor successfully gave more than 70% COD removal with biomass granulation. Utilization of nutrients present in the treated sewage for the growth of microalgal species will not only control eutrophication but will also help in sustainable energy development. The findings of this study suggest that sewage wastewater can be directly used for mass cultivation of microalgae without requiring additional nutrient supplements. The effluent of the algal pond can be directly reused for surface irrigation of non-food crops.
Pilot 3, HYSAF package wastewater treatment plant: A very complete evaluation was done in this pilot, including the technical evaluation, a brief hygienic and health impact and also the environmental system analysis, thanks to the data provided. Firstly, it is important to underline the role of the start-up period for the correct performance of the process. Secondly, during the steady-state period, the results proved that the single stage IFAS reactor is a compatible, efficient and appropriate wastewater treatment solution for small communities under actual field conditions. Also, it was demonstrated that the attached biomass played significant role in overall removal of organics and nutrients, as the SEM results revealed. As far as the effect of dissolved oxygen is concerned, the optimal DO for nitrification and denitrification efficiencies in the IFAS reactor was found to be 4.5 and 2.5 mgL-1. Overall, the optimal DO concentration was suggested as 4.5 mgL-1 for the IFAS system as it not only achieved high organics removal efficiency and but also minimized the sludge production with high sludge retention time. Despite the acceptable performance of the pilot plant removing pathogens for most of the monitored microorganisms compared to some biological treatment technologies, the residual values found in the effluent did not comply with regulations of concerned area. About the environmental analysis, the HYSAF system impact appears directed mainly (73%) by its electrical consumption during the operation phase. Infrastructure and maintenance is negligible and the sludge management step contributes for 22%. Analysis would gain in quality with more accurate data on Indian conditions, representative set of value measured during a year in routine conditions and gaseous emissions measurement.
Pilot 4, GROW grey-water recycling system and Hybrid System: It was possible to carry out a simplified technical evaluation and the environmental system analysis, but it was no possible to do the hygienic and health impact because the lack of data. About Pilot 4 conclusions, constructed wetlands are very useful and low cost option for the treatment of domestic greywater for reuse. The effluents from the GROW and Hybrid constructed wetland are of high quality and are within the permissible limits for reuse during the various operating conditions. Studies show that the Hybrid is more efficient than GROW not only in the removal of organics but also for nutrient removal such as N and P components. It was also concluded from the study that the removal efficiencies of all pollutants in GROW and Hybrid system was more as the hydraulic retention time increased or flow rate decreased and the removal efficiency decreased as the organic loading is increased. Overall, the GROW and Hybrid system showed that it has ability to produce a safe reusable water for non-potable applications. In addition to the above conclusions, the GROW system is designed in such a way that it can be installed in the apartment rooftop to save the permanent land space. About the environmental system analysis, the GROW system impact is directed essentially (99%) by its infrastructure and more precisely by the metallic support. Its production generates CO2 emission and contributes to metal and energy resource depletion. No recycling has been considered in the study but sensitivity analysis reveals that when the infrastructure contribution is low, the overall impact (single score) of the treatment pilot is very low. Two scenarios have been analyzed in detail for the HYCW (Hybrid constructed wetland): a biowaste reuse option with compost production and spreading and a disposal option. In both case the sludge management governed results at midpoint level.
Pilot 5, ACTIFLO storm-water treatment system: It was only possible to carry out a summary of the technical evaluation with the data provided. Urban Stormwater runoff contains many organic and inorganic matter, which are discharged into Nainital Lake causing environmental pollution and health hazards. Ballasted Sand Flocculation (BSF) showed a very good removal of particulate matter, organic constituent, nutrients (phosphorous), and coliforms during the pilot study. BSF unit treat the storm water runoff with average removal rate of 88% for TSS, 76% for COD, 72% for BOD, 80% for OP and 83% for TP, 86% of TC and 84% of FC. The findings of this study suggest that BSF unit can be a promising technology for mitigating the contaminants’ impact of storm water runoffs on receiving surface water bodies.
Pilot 6, Mobile anaerobic sludge digester: It was only possible to carry out a summary of the technical evaluation with the data provided. After the experimental phase, the main conclusion obtained is that increasing retention time does not increase the digestion efficiency significantly and that the digestion or removal rates of COD and VS were high (>70%), so the biodigester was running properly, not having problems of efficiency on digestion process. The experimental phase concluded that the total biogas production potential were about 394,87 ± 19,67 L/kg VS destroyed without co and 623 L/kg VS destroyed with co-digestion (617 L/kg VS destroyed has been referred on feasibility study). The introduction of co-digestion only increased biogas production from 250 to 280 L/day (maximum production of 350 L/day) and the methane content of biogas can be considered normal (68%).
Pilot 7, Closed vessel composting system: It was possible to carry out an extended technical evaluation thanks to the data provided, but no hygienic and health impact was done because of the lack of data. Analysis were conducted at lab scale to determine and control the basic parameters required for the process of composting viz. Total Organic Matter content ,Volatile Solid Content and Moisture for the Sludge, Bulking Agent and Mixture. Also for proper agitation and aeration, composting reactor is needed to be rotated regularly at an interval of 12 hours during the experimental setup. For the pilot setup no. 16 a maximum temperature of 58.1 deg. Celsius which is closely related to thermophilic temperature was obtained on the 3rd day of composting and was seen be constant for a period of 1 hour after which there was a gradual decrease in the temperature. The moisture content of the mixture was maintained between 60-65 percent and the Solid Content ranged between 35-40 percent. Initially the runs were conducted using dried leaves as Bulking Agent. However for the runs conducted from January 2016 onwards, a mixture of crushed dried leaves or wood shavings of specific size (0.5-2.0cm) have been used as Bulking Agent.
3.4.2 Socio-economic evaluation
In the course of the SARASWATI project, eight pilot studies were planned respectively implemented, but only two of them, pilots 1 and 1A in Madhya Pradesh state, could be studied in a real life context, where they responded to a pressing social need, confirmed by previous city sanitation plans. Therefore, socio-economic evaluations could only be conducted for those 2 pilots:
During the project, three household surveys were conducted and another survey of local politicians. These surveys confirmed that waterborne diseases (mainly diarrhoea, vomiting) were prevalent; in Raisen there was also a mosquito problem with reports of malaria and dengue fever. There was a consensus amongst respondents, that a major reason for their poor health was the insufficient sanitation situation, with lacking access to tapped water and toilets, inadequate waste collection, no sewerage connections, and insufficient or missing storm water sewers causing regular flooding of houses during monsoon. Respondents appreciated the initiative to build new sewers and connect them to wastewater treatment plants, but willingness-to-pay surveys indicated that they may barely afford the running costs. The reason was the prevailing poverty in the target areas of both towns. The major source of income for the households of Mishra Talaab and Lalbagh slums was day labour and the median per-capita household-income was 1384 INR/month (0.69 €/day, assuming 30 days/month and 1000 INR = 15 €). However, the ability and willingness of households to take part in sharing the costs for better sanitation may rise, as soon as they realize the health benefits from better sanitation. For, currently half of the households spent in average per household member 2% or more of their income for illness related expenses.
Detailed information can be found in deliverable D3.5.
3.5 WP 5: Integrated sustainability and potential assessment
3.5.1 Criteria development
Literature about sustainability of wastewater technology has developed a rich body of criteria and indicators. Therefore, as initial step, a literature review to update the knowledge on sustainability criteria/indicators relevant for wastewater management was conducted. However, the review of criteria did not aim at completeness, but to demonstrate that generally accepted criteria relevant for the present study were not missed. For, many criteria of literature originated from specific case study situations that may not matter in the present context. (Example: the ‘remoteness of planners to users’ may explain in hindsight technology failures, but the present study had its focus on apparent success cases.) Other criteria may be more important in the context of global policy discussions (e.g. CO2 trade, ecological footprint, virtual water), while here the focus was on viable recommendations for Indian local bodies that wish to upgrade existing or build new sanitation infrastructure. Overall, about 95 sustainability criteria from literature were identified.
A special focus was on criteria for the social and institutional sustainability assessment, where SARASWATI searched for indicators aiming at allowing the investigators to focus their efforts on specific areas of sustainability and to measure the relevant performance and improvements. Indicator development thereby aimed at supporting the tasks to identify and prioritize the need sustainability activities. Amongst others the following environmental indicators were identified as socially relevant: air pollution (respiratory pollutants, global warming, ozone layer depletion), water pollution and contaminant removal (aquatic acidification, aquatic eutrophication, eco-toxicity, pathogens from leakages and from regular liquid emissions), use of energy (electricity, fossil fuels), nutrients, minerals and land (used area for treatment plants), and recovery potential of the treatment products (biogas, sludge), in particular, water reuse (ground water depletion). Amongst socially relevant economic criteria were capital costs for construction and running costs for operation and management, in particular for energy and labour, and their aggregation to life-cycle costs (net present value or other methods), and revenues from recycling. Thereby, environmental criteria such as use of resources (energy, mineral extraction, land use) had also a direct economic counterpart. Further criteria were the durability and reliability of the technology, the manpower requirements and the capability of the management to ensure proper operation, and positive economic impacts in terms of e.g. income generation effects (employment opportunities and opportunities for local development and business). Also the users’ ability to pay was considered. For the social and institutional criteria, the very process of planning a wastewater treatment system and the related system activities were a study focus in literature, in particular: What were the institutional requirements (e.g. compatibility with existing regulations), did these processes allow for the participation of the stakeholders and the public in general, was there public awareness and acceptance for the very purpose of the system and its concrete planning, did planning aim at achieving consumer satisfaction? Other institutional aspects were the available expertise (could the system be designed, built, operated and upgraded by local experts and workers), the safety of the operation (e.g. what kind of monitoring and quality control was implemented). In part, the institutional and social criteria were interrelated with previous ones, asking e.g. about the fair sharing of the burdens and benefits from the system (e.g. affordability of the users, lacking acceptability due to nuisances for the neighbours). Another aspect was the social situation of the staff (their needed qualifications, the working conditions, their satisfaction and their attitudes towards achieving a safe and reliable plant operation). Several social and institutional criteria were also interrelated to environmental and economic criteria, e.g. with respect to risk management (exposure to pollutants and pathogens in case of possible failures and also from regular reuse).
Summarizing, common criteria that appear in most approaches for sanitation technology assessment cover exposure to pathogens and vectors (human health), pollution (water, soil), criteria motivated from life cycle analysis methodology, costs, affordability and acceptability by users, and criteria related to the implementing institutions. Further considerations for the criteria selection were the applicable laws of India and regulations in other countries, e.g. the effluent guidelines under the USA Clean Water Act or European Union directives (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directives 96/61/EC and 2008/1/EC, Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU). Consequently, the assessment of the technologies focused on the following aspects:
Technical/chemical performance evaluation: For the assessment of the physical water quality, the preliminary qualitative study took for all plants up to three samples (inflow and effluent) and tested them for TSS and BOD5. For, when comparing the new Indian legal threshold with similar much looser thresholds in other developing countries, TSS and BOD5 were considered to be problematic. Indeed, the median pollution loads of treated wastewater from the sampled plants turned out to be twice as high as the new Indian thresholds for effluents. For the 15 case study plants, up to twelve additional monthly measurements of physical water quality parameters from legal regulations (TSS, BOD5, COD, TKN, N as NH4) and from life cycle studies (e.g. alkalinity CaCO3, phosphorous PO4, sulphur SO4) were performed.
Hygienic and health impact assessment: For the case study sites, faecal coliforms and, depending on the specific site, other pathogens were counted. In order to draw conclusions about the health impact of reusing the effluents, certain dose-response models were used. The pathogen load was either measured (faecal coliforms were always measured) or it was estimated using ratios from the literature. The focus was on faecal coliforms, as this count is standardized in the Indian context.
Environmental systems analysis: Here life cycle assessment methodology was applied to assess also the reuse (e.g. biogas, sewage sludge and treated water). Amongst considered issues was the transfer of heavy metals (cadmium, lead, copper, mercury, selenium, chromium, etc.) from the sludge into the soil.
Economic and financial evaluation: This aimed at the assessment of viability and affordability. To this end, for 47 plants capital costs and for 14 plants also running costs were obtained. In order to obtain comparable data, net present values and equivalent approaches for data aggregation were used. These data were compared with survey data about the willingness to pay of typical beneficiaries of future projects. Such surveys were conducted as part of the project.
Acceptance by the decision makers: Lacking acceptance of users may be due to excessive costs. This is assessed under the financial evaluation. In addition, there may be potential barriers due to the perception of decision-makers about decentralized WWT technologies. To this ends, stakeholder workshops were conducted.
Social and institutional evaluation: This was conducted, as experience has shown that project failures in the sanitation sector often occurred due to negligence of such aspects. The focus was on technology-related social and institutional aspects, asking e.g. about the working conditions, if a certain technology necessarily increased the risk for STP employees to come into contact with wastewater.
3.5.2 Further evaluation results
The outcomes of the technical and chemical performance evaluation, of the hygienic and health impact assessment, of the environmental system analysis, of the economic and financial evaluation and of the social and institutional evaluation were outlined in the sections above.
Acceptance of technologies: The social and institutional evaluation was supplemented by surveys of in total 72 decision makers and key opinion leaders at workshops in Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai about their views on decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. Most relevant to this study were the respondents’ preferences for technologies, where respondents informed about their views about the suitability for decentralized wastewater treatment (WWT) of five types of technologies.
For the surveys, the technologies were grouped into Tech A, natural treatment, such as wastewater ponds or constructed wetlands, and Tech B, simple built technologies, such as anaerobic baffled reactors, up-flow anaerobic sludge blankets, oxidation ponds, or trickling filters. Preferences for these groups were correlated to the policy view, whether urban local bodies should drive decentralization. Tech C asked about combinations of technologies, such as DEWATS. Preferences for this group of technologies was correlated to whether respondents stated a favourite technology for decentralized WWT, and whether they requested certain criteria for the assessment of technologies. Tech D was comprised of conventional WWT technologies, such as activated sludge or EA, and Tech E of advanced WWT technologies, such as membrane bioreactors. For each group, except C, there were 46 to 52 proponents, considering them as (rather) suitable; i.e. with 95% confidence 54% or higher approval (see the above figure). Group C (natural treatment combined with simple technologies) had weaker support with 38 proponents. For all technology groups, except A, there were 10-11 opponents considering them as (rather) not suitable. Group A (natural treatment) had 20 opponents. Most of them (11) were concerned about the large land use. The most stated reason for preferring A (15 of 46 proponents) and C (11 of 38) were low costs and low O&M efforts. Thereby, also for A and C approval exceeded disapproval (non-overlapping confidence intervals).
Notably, the overall preference for decentralized technologies was unrelated to these technology preferences. Most respondents (65) approved of decentralized WWT, amongst the reasons being the reuse of treated wastewater and the difficulties with centralized systems (high capital costs for sewers, difficult site selection, complex operation, lacking capacity at the local level). However, some preferred centralized systems for lower O&M costs, less land use and easier enforcement of standards. Further, the respondents’ technology preferences were rather unrelated to all other themes; in particular, there was no indication for sampling bias e.g. due to the respondents’ personal characteristics, such as their type of job. (This was in contrast to the outcome for the politically controversial topic, if users or the government should pay most for sanitation.)
Summarizing, overall, stakeholders were rather neutral with respect to the question, what technology would be suitable for upscaling decentralized WWT in India, and each technology group was supported by some. Therefore, although respondents as individuals had clear preferences, there was no indication that bias of decision-makers in the water sector as a group could be a barrier for the selection of any of the considered technologies.
Relative importance of the criteria: In order to prepare the integrative assessment and put more emphasis on criteria that decision-makers from India deem as important, the stakeholder workshops in Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai were used to inquire (in a questionnaire) the priorities of 72 decision-makers and opinion leaders with an interest in decentralized WWT. These results were complemented with questionnaires from 17 respondents attending a dissemination workshop in Mumbai.
For pollution, acceptance, operation and health the confidence intervals for the percentages of responses with high respectively low ranks did not overlap. In view of this figure it can be expected, that amongst the base population of decision-makers with an interest in decentralized WWT the criteria pollution and health will be deemed as rather important, while acceptance and ease of operation will be considered of rather low importance; no similar decision was possible for costs, where there is a political discussion about a higher user participation in cost sharing.
The survey at the dissemination workshop focused on the question, if opinion leaders were also willing to consider global environmental topics in decision making about sanitation technologies. There was an interesting pattern of correlations: A higher weight for global environmental impacts had significant (95% significance level) negative correlations with costs and social acceptance, and a higher weight for local environmental impacts had a significant negative correlation with health. Otherwise, there were no significant correlations. This outcome seems to indicate that global issues were emphasized by respondents less interested in protecting the local interests of the users and urban local bodies, while local pollution and health may have been considered as different aspects of the same problem.
Thus, for the overall assessment of technologies, it follows that the reduction of the pollution load of the effluents in terms of the biophysical parameters and the concentration of faecal coliforms will be of utmost importance for Indian decision makers. Other criteria should be considered, too, but technologies that cannot guarantee the fulfilment of the respective legal thresholds will not be acceptable.
3.5.3 Integrated assessment
The case study experiences may be summarized as follows: For each criterion there were successful candidate plants, but in a systematic search across India with a sample of 58 plants there was none with proven success with respect to all criteria, although the definition of a candidate plant required only minimal conditions (not asking to handle extreme pollution loads). Perhaps, the new and very tight Indian standard for effluents may overtask the urban local bodies (ULBs) in charge of wastewater treatment (WWT). In particular, it follows with 95% confidence that even amongst apparently well-working WWT-plants at most 5% could be expected to be affordable and meet the new standards.
This result indicates that new technologies may be needed for developing countries. In order to identify the most promising paths of future research, the following case study experiences may help. The focus of the present study was on extended aeration (11 studies about EA), moving bed biofilm reactors (11 studies about MBBR), constructed wetlands (10 studies about DEWATS of types Borda or other, i.e. DEW/B, DEW/O), and to a lesser extent on vortex (6 studies). A life cycle analysis confirmed this choice for the latter systems (relatively low impact scores for DEW/B, DEW/O, some MBBR, and Vortex). However, EA may have been overrepresented; it failed with respect to BOD5 and pathogen removal (even with chlorination) and was not affordable. Further, in view of the life cycle analysis there may have been few case studies about membrane bioreactors (2 MBR), onsite anaerobic systems (2 On-An), and anaerobic filters (1 AF). Yet, AF failed with respect to TSS and BOD5 removal, pathogen removal and affordability.
Membrane bioreactors (MBR) were the only technology, where effluents fulfilled the water quality standards of Indian law with respect to physicochemical parameters, but the low pathogen load of the inflow of the considered plants did not allow to decide about pathogen removal and costs were unaffordable for poor households. With respect to health and hygiene, only one plant, an aerated lagoon (AL with effluent disinfection), had sufficient pathogen removal, but TSS removal was unsatisfactory (therefore also high impact scores in the environmental impact assessment) and as the considered plant was undersized, costs were inconclusive. With respect cost recovery from the users, aside from undersized STPs all case study plants would require users to pay more than 10 INR/month. As pilot experiences in Madhya Pradesh indicate, for poor HHs this may not be affordable. Thereby, moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR) and soil biotechnology (SBT) were most promising, but where decided, MBBR and SBT failed for TSS and BOD5 removal (MBBR also failed for pathogen removal). Acceptability by decision-makers or by users was not a problem for any technology. Summarizing, affordable systems (e.g. MBBR) did not meet all water quality standards and systems that may meet them (e.g. MBR) were not affordable for the poor.
It follows that in the development of new technologies for developing countries more research about membrane bioreactors (MBR) with a focus on cost savings and about aerated lagoons (AL) with a focus on physicochemical water quality and better cost data may be needed. Further, for moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR) and soil biotechnology (SBT) additional studies about low-cost options to improve the water quality of effluents may be needed.
These results have also bearings on the selection and the relative importance of criteria. Thus, pathogen removal was problematic, but most of the considered technologies were not meant for pathogen removal. They require disinfection and the lack of disinfection was rather an institutional failure, as disinfection has not been added to the system. Hence, a technology should not be removed from further consideration only because of its inability to remove pathogens.
Further, in view of the extremely high pollution concentrations, onsite systems (On-An) seem to be incomparable with the other systems and need separate consideration. Too tight standards could impede the implementation of these widely used technologies. For this study, although onsite systems did not fulfil all legal thresholds, the present approach did not classify them as failure, as they typically had to clean wastewater with extremely high pollution concentrations. Also industry representatives suggested in interviews, that for such systems the legal standards may be too high, as in view of the economy of scales for smaller systems tight standards might be achievable only at excessive per capita costs. This issue might be resolved by capacity dependent standards for WWT-systems; i.e. tighter standards for larger systems. This may also be the approach of current practice. For, as is illustrated by the case studies, BOD5 of the effluents of all three onsite systems (they represent 29% of municipal WWT) was by design above the old and comparably lenient legal thresholds.
Detailed information can be found in deliverable D5.1.
3.6 WP 6: Tools for replication and up-scaling
3.6.1 Task 1-3: Guidelines
One of the main goals of SARASWATI project is to provide the different Indian stakeholders with useful tools for the adoption of sustainable wastewater treatment systems in order to face water challenges and meet SDG 6 targets in 2030. Concretely, deliverable 6.1 is a compilation of three guidelines:
• Guidelines for technology application. These guidelines comprise a consolidated review and summary of lessons learned and recommendations on the scope and potential of application of the technologies studied under WP2 (case studies) and WP4 (pilot actions).
• Technical guidelines for technology design. These guidelines gather useful information to replicate and up-scale wastewater treatment technologies adapted to the Indian context. These guidelines pay special attention to the EU pilot actions carried out under WP4 and those technologies assessed in WP2.
• Recommendations for water reuse and effluent standards in India. Considering international trends on water reuse (standards, effluent limits, potential uses, restrictions), recommendations for water reuse in India are presented.
Briefly, the main features of the guidelines are as follows:
1. Guidelines for technology application
Based on deliverables of WP2 and WP3, and other sources of information, these guidelines have been prepared focusing on three main issues:
▪ Review of the different existing wastewater treatment systems in India (and those which are also applicable in that context), namely those included in the scope of SARASWATI project.
▪ Learned lessons in the application of sanitation and wastewater treatment solutions in India, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each of the technologies assessed in the frame of SARASWATI project.
▪ Assessment of the potential up-scaling and replication of the analyzed technologies in Indian populations not covered by sanitation and sewage water treatment.
These guidelines try to be user-friendly, including successful cases studies, and several pictures (visual tool). They pretend to be a useful complement to the existing guidelines (i.e CPHEEO manual).
2. Technical guidelines for technology design
For the preparation of the technical guidelines, international designing standards have been employed as a starting point. With the information obtained from the deliverables in WP2 and WP4, and also direct information from the leaders of the pilot actions, relevant information about the premises in the design adopted to face the local challenges has been identified.

8 fact-sheets have been prepared which correspond to the following technologies:
• Trickling filters
• Rotating Biological Contactors
• Extended Aeration
• MBR (membrane biological reactors)
• SBR (Sequencing batch reactors)
• Anaerobic treatments
• Lagonning
• Sludge treatment

3. Recommendations for reuse and effluent standards
The aim of this document is trigger the thought process of policymakers, implementing agencies, funding agencies, technology providers and other relevant stakeholders implied in the treated wastewater reuse in India. Also, it pretends to be a useful complement to the existing Indian recommended norms for water reuse (i.e CPHEEO manual). In this sense, the document is structured in the base of the following topics:
➢ -Global overview of water reuse
➢ -Clarify the usual terminology and definitions on water reuse
➢ -Background on treated wastewater reuse, including benefits and risks, technology issues in water reclamation and the water reuse at EU and Indian contexts.
➢ Guidelines and regulations for water reuse, conducting a thorough analysis both at the global, European and Indian levels and a benchmarking between Indian and European standards for water reuse.
➢ Evaluation of Indian technologies for water reuse in the frame of WP2 based on influent characteristics and treatment performance, according to Indian norms for water reuse (CPHHEO Manual), as well as on the level of social acceptance of recycling and reuse in the frame of WP3.
➢ Suggest some recommendations for water reuse in India, considering some key issues relating to the different applications as well as key factors for establishing initiatives and others aspects.
The detailed guidelines and recommendations can be found in deliverable D6.1.
3.6.2 Task 4: Financial and institutional recommendations
Recommendations on financing: Traditional governance in the water sector suffered from the fragmentation of institutions, excessive centralization and an unclear division of responsibilities between different branches of administration, often resulting in inefficient administration, outdated management practices and misguided decision-making. In response, various organizational options for water and sanitation service provision have been developed. With different forms of organization requiring also different models of ownership, there are also different models for financing and cost recovery from the users.
Worldwide, cost recovery is becoming increasingly important, as costs of water and sanitation services are due to rise. In developed countries, ageing infrastructure needs to be replaced, in developed countries there is still a need for new infrastructure, and worldwide service providers have to keep up with rising quality standards, as occurred for pilots 1 and 1A, where the legal standards became stricter during the planning of the pilots. However, in India cost recovery from the users is still a topic of political discussion, focusing on the question, if public or private − or a partnership among them − can best provide and manage water services. A survey of 72 respondents from government, business and academia at the SARASWATI workshops confirmed that all approaches for promoting decentralized wastewater treatment were approved by most respondents, except those based on instruments and policies related to more user participation in cost sharing: This topic was highly controversial.
SARASWATI recommends to resolve this question on a case to case basis, considering the social, economic, legal and institutional framework, and also the situation of the environment and the desired goals, using different models of organization and cost sharing as a toolbox, from which decision-makers may choose from. Thereby, organization may be in the form of public ownership (e.g. administrative department, corporative undertaking by special status companies), public ownership with private involvement, but no private financing (e.g. management contracts, design-build contracts), public and private ownership (e.g. franchise), concessions for public undertakings, or full privatization (e.g. licensing, divestiture). Financing of the capital costs of water and sanitation infrastructure in general requires public co-financing or funding, whereas the running costs should be financed by tariffs or taxes collected from the users; for some models a private partner may share the risk for defaults (e.g. lease). Thereby, users may contribute a flat rate (e.g. monthly water tax per tap), a block rate based on metering (whereby defunct meters are a common problem) or more advanced systems (e.g. peak-load prizing using smart meters). Additional revenues may come from sales taxes and communal charges, and from the sale of treated wastewater, biogas or sludge of wastewater treatment plants.
While past infrastructure developments could focus on compliant users, who participated in cost sharing (a precondition for funding under the water sector reform policies), now there remain the irregular settlements. They, too, need to be connected to wastewater treatment infrastructure, as otherwise they would continue with open defecation and thereby compromise the environmental and public-health benefits from wastewater treatment. However, the experiences with pilots 1 and 1A in Madhya Pradesh indicate that cost sharing may be a major barrier, as many slum dwellers were not willing to pay even a moderate sanitation tax. Further, interviews with stakeholders at the SARASWATI case study sites (socio-economic evaluation) indicated a generally low priority for wastewater issues, as there would be a more urgent need to improve the efficiency of the municipal water supply system, as certain areas receive continuous supply while other regions face severe water cuts.
The issue of cost sharing could not be resolved by merely selecting inexpensive technologies, as the SARASWATI analysis of wastewater treatment plants across India (see above: integrated assessment) concluded that plants meeting all legal standards might not be affordable for the poor. In order to resolve this dilemma, the costs for water and sanitation infrastructure serving a poor population may need to be subsidized by the municipalities. As was observed for the Tamil Nadu surveys of SARASWATI, this is a current practice in India. Thereby, using willingness to pay studies may help in focusing the support to the poor and develop cost recovery models that avoid the current scattering the subsidies. (Basically, the users of better-off neighbourhoods with a higher willingness to pay would pay higher charges and thereby public subsidies could focus to the urban poor.)
Interviews with opinion leaders at the SARASWATI workshops indicated that the sale of treated wastewater was not considered to have much potential for financing the running costs of wastewater treatment plants. Interviews and discussions with stakeholders at the case study sites (socio-economic evaluation) indicated that reuse of reclaimed water needs a quality assurance, such as through regular laboratory checks in government certified labs. These results should be updated to the users. The need for stringent regulations to control water pollution from wastewater discharge was clearly expressed. Respondents further were concerned about a lowering water table due to changing climatic conditions. However, for them water conservation had a higher priority than reuse of treated wastewater. Thereby, recharge of ground water through treated wastewater was considered as viable. More generally, a reuse option was the more accepted, the lower was the human contact with treated wastewater.
Institutional recommendations: Wastewater treatment (WWT) solutions needs to be sustainable in terms of social, environmental, and economic aspects. The social and institutional evaluation of WWT-plants is essential in identifying indicators of sustainability of decentralised wastewater management. There is a need for decentralised WWT-plants in availing public support as well as curbing water pollution, protection of the environment, and water saving by reuse for non-potable purposes. However, the support from people is inevitable for acceptance for treatment of wastewater and reuse.
Social evaluation results indicate the need for raising awareness among stakeholders (including community) regarding wastage of water, WWT and reuse. Awareness will help in improving the acceptance of reuse of reclaimed water. Awareness and acceptance among stakeholders and users gives motivation to broaden the scope of WWT and reuse technologies suitable for India. However, awareness can also change the approach towards WWT. It can change the misconception in people or it may create aversion if not planned adequately. Therefore, attempt to gather support from community living around the plants should be simultaneously pursued at the planning stage.
Where social aspects related to WWT and reuse were inadequately explored a lack of involvement of the society resulted. However, it is evident that involvement of local, national, international stakeholders is crucial for sustainable wastewater management. The issue is in the dearth of opportunities for stakeholders to participate in the process. Opportunities for stakeholder as well as community participation can and should be created. This will provide a chance for dialogue between management and general population which will help in reducing the fear in reusing reclaimed water. Unless there is a willingness among people to understand the benefits of WWT, reluctance to reuse will hamper in achieving a successful wastewater management program.
Institutional evaluation indicates the role of institutions in sustainable wastewater management. Institutions with financial resources are open to choose technology offering quality WWT. Local government plays a crucial role in supporting communities, small scale businesses, and households in identifying appropriate wastewater technologies and by financially supporting the required parties. There is a lack of infrastructure facilities required for the distribution of TWW for reuse. Thus, establishing adequate WWT needs appropriate planning in choosing location, technology, and infrastructure facilities to distribute TWW to the users.
The detailed recommendations can be found in deliverable D6.4.

3.6.3 Wisdom Decision Support System
The scope of this task was to develop a user friendly decision support system that will help to identify suitable wastewater treatment technologies for the Indian context.
The main features of the tool are as follows:
• The tool is able to identify optimal treatment trains meeting water quality standards for the user defined end uses (e.g. 1. toilet flushing, 2. fire protection, 3. vehicle exterior washing, 4. non-contact impoundments, 5. horticulture gold course, 6. non-edible crops, 7. edible crops – raw, and 8. edible crops – cooked).
• The tool can be used to visualise the impact of technology selection on a range of sustainability indicators (e.g. Energy Requirement, Sludge Production; Chemical Requirement, Impact on Groundwater, Land Requirement etc.).
• The tool is able to identify solutions for different scales of deployment.
• The tool can find optimal solutions using two techniques: Multi Objective Optimisation (both NSGA-II and Omni-Optimizer) and MCDA (Compromise Programming),
• The graphical user interface can be operated using several platforms including: Windows, Android, and iOS.
• The tool is able to see trade-offs between different technology performance indicators for a range of contexts and scales.
• The tool is flexible to select/deselect a wide range of performance criteria (e.g. 1. CAPEX, 2. OPEX, 3. Energy Requirement, 4. Sludge Production, 5. Chemical Requirement, 6. Impact on Groundwater, 7. Land Requirement, 8. Labour Requirement, 9. Reliability, 10. Adaptability to Upgrade, 11. Adaptability to Varying Flow, 12. Adaptability to Varying Quality, 13. Ease of O & M, 14. Ease of Construction) and change the user assigned weights to each criteria.
• The tool is able to select/deselect the number of optimisation/minimisation objectives (e.g. (e.g. 1. CAPEX, 2. OPEX, 3. Energy Requirement, 4. Sludge Production, 5. Land Requirement, 6. Labour Requirement).
• The tool is able to automatically eliminate the treatment processes types that are not viable in India.
• The tool can be used as a negotiation tool to investigate the impact of conflicting objectives of different stakeholders on technology selection.
• The technology library for the tool contains 40 unit processes and 10 packaged wastewater treatment systems, and a database on their sustainability attributes and operational requirements including the level of expertise required to operate the selected technologies.
• Some default values as well as tips, alerts and help messages are also provided in the GUI; this feature is especially designed for users with limited knowledge of wastewater engineering and water reuse applications.
• Additional features on genetic algorithm parameters and user preferences on unit processes are designed in the tool which allows the expert user to assert greater control over the operation of the Genetic Algorithm.
A detailed description of the Wisdom DSS can be found in deliverable D6.5.

Potential Impact:
4.1 Foster innovation in the water sector and create a beneficial economic impact
The technologies used though not exactly innovative, but paved the way to solve some of the major challenges related to wastewater treatment in developing countries like India. Technologies such as HYSAF can be implemented at cluster level with least operation and maintenance, Grow system for recycling greywater in Chalets, large houses etc., Other systems such as UASB and HRAP can be applied for village level for the treatment of wastewater and reuse.
A beneficial economic impact has already been achieved by pilots 1 and 1A. Both plants are currently in construction and provide employment to local experts and laborer. Further, once completed, the currently poor environmental situation due to untreated wastewater will have been improved leading to substantial indirect economic impacts.

4.2 Help policy makers to solve real water problems and to overcome barriers for effective and efficient wastewater recycling and reuse
Over the last decade, hundreds of decentralised wastewater treatment plants of different technology types have been installed all over India. However, not all are functioning well and several also failed, due to various reasons. It has been observed by our Indian partners that there is a serious issue on the operation and maintenance part of the small systems. Most of these are just showcases for pollution control boards and cannot achieve the desired water quality. The Government have to rethink on the promotion of decentralized systems.
SARASWATI has provided insights in the actual functioning of such plants and the reason for failures, thus providing information to policy makers that will help to overcome barriers for wastewater recycling and reuse.
Pilots 1 and 1A solved real water problems in areas where no proper sanitation and wastewater treatment has existed. Local policy makers have been strongly involved in the process of planning and design.

4.3 Pave the way for subsequent large scale deployment of technologies
Pilots 1 and 1A – Trickling filter.
• Trickling filters can be a suitable technology for rural and small towns very the expected capacity of operating and financing treatment plants is low, and no space is available for natural treatment plants.
• The pilots were applied in Indian communities and covered already larger settlements. The final plants will be serving up to 50.000 inhabitants. Replication of the plants will be possible as the construction has been carried out by local companies using local materials.

Pilot 2 (UASB + HRAP):
• Presently several plants are working on similar technologies in urban areas, there is a limited experience in small and decentralize plants in rural and peri-urban areas. These types of systems are discouraged in urban areas due to larger area requirement, and odor issues. However, it is observed that the system can be applied for rural wastewater treatment due to least capital and operation and maintenance cost.
• Typical Design guidelines on the application and operation and maintenance is being developed
Pilot 3 HYSAF-Pilot Plant:
• Until now, no sturdy technology is available for high end effluent treatment for communities and clusters, mainly due to the difficult control on MLSS. Application of HYSAF pilot plant for achieving high end effluent quality and can be used in sensitive areas such as religious places, tourist resorts, hotels, restaurants etc., in plain and hilly areas on the Bank of River Ganga.
• In the changing scenario, there is a lot of scope of replication for HYSAF, as no well proven technology is available for high end treatment and reuse of combined wastewater is available at decentralized level.
• HYSAF system shall be able to achieve reuse standards under intermittent operation mode with additional sand filtration. Local company, Brisanzia pvt. Ltd showed interest in replication of the technology.
Pilot-4 GROW:
• GROW successfully applied for the treatment of greywater. The treated greywater is used for toilet flushing in Krishna Hostel, IIT Madras.
• The promising aesthetically appealing GROW technology has a very high potential for greywater treatment and reuse in Institutions, Villas, Multistoried apartments, Government buildings as well as in Rural communities thereby conserving a significant quantum of water.
Pilot 5 Ballasted Flocculation Process for Polluted Stormwater Treatment:
• No solution is available for the treatment of heavily polluted first flush of rainwater. First Time application for Stormwater or Combined Stormwater and Sewage Treatment in India.
• Though, an expensive technology for high quantum of stormwater treatment, nevertheless, it can significantly control the pollution load to lakes thereby controlling further degradation. However, the operation can be optimizing for critical operation period, ie., during several hour operation for first flush thereby reducing significant cost
Pilot 6: Mobile Anaerobic Digestion unit
• Very limited information is available on septage characterization and treatment in Indian conditions
• The technology not only treat the spetage but also recover energy in the form of biogas. The biogas can be used for cooking or other applications
Though lot of emphasis is given of septage management by the Govt. of India, but AD wasn’t taken into account due to limited knowhow. The system is found to be very promising in septage management and resource recovery.

Pilot-7 In-Vessel Composting septage/sludge composting system
• The sludge disposal is an upcoming issue, composting in open area would be a cause of odor, nuisance, vector and leachete. Hence, In-vessel composting could be a very promising alternative for open area or windrows composting with maximum resource recovery in the form of nutrients.

4.4 Contribute to the development of common standards trhough best practices and benchmark of technologies
Efforts were taken to benchmark the technologies and this outcome will be useful to take policy decision in India. Further, experts of the Saraswati consortium were involved in developing standard at EU and international (ISO) level, in particular in ISO TC 282 (water reuse) and ISO PC 305 (non-sewered sanitation systems).
4.5 Strengthen long-term partnership between EU, MS and India and support SFIC activities
The project provided a platform to ensure a healthy partnership between EU, MS and India. It opened up opportunities for future research and development activities. In particular:

• EU partners provide insight of data analysis. Provided strong methodological support for developing the sampling plan and methodological approach.
• Risk and Hygiene assessment on Actual plants.
• Collaborate in troubleshooting the pilot plants.
• Interaction of research scholars with international faculty has given a positive boost to the work confidence.
• Joint publications and state-of-the art for wastewater treatment and reuse in EU countries.
• Developed state-of-the-art decision support system for the selection of wastewater and sludge treatment technologies for desired reuse.
• This collaboration has resulted in understanding other activities undertaken by the participating investigators and their group. Such interaction will lead to undertaking joint collaborative project in the area of mutual interest in near future.

4.6 Dissemination

By the end of the project over 20 peer reviewed publications and almost 60 other dissemination events/items were achieved. Among them were high impact scientific journals and major international conferences with worldwide recognition, addressing a wide audience of scientific and non-scientific stakeholders.

List of Websites:
www.project-saraswati.net

Dr. Markus Starkl
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna
Gregor Mendel Strasse 33
1180 Vienna
AUSTRIA
Email: markus.starkl@boku.ac.at

Final Report Summary - SARASWATI (Supporting consolidation, replication and up-scaling of sustainable wastewater treatment and reuse technologies for India)

Related documents

Share this page

Download