Today, a large number of apartment complexes, malls and tech parks in Bengaluru have their own STPs (Sewage Treatment Plants). If an STP is working properly, its treated water would look just like tap water – clear, without any odour. In addition, it must meet the specifications set by the State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB).

If the treated water looks dark brown, or stinks, the STP owner knows that the STP has some trouble. But even if the treated water looks clear and odour-free, it may still not meet specifications; and the owner may not be even aware that his STP has a problem. And the truth is, there are many such defective STPs running in Bengaluru, about which the owners may not be aware.

This article explains why we have so many faulty STPs, and what needs to be done to change this.

But why should apartments have STPs at all?

Many of us may think that running STPs is a specialized job; so why should we attempt to run an STP in our apartment complex in the first place? Why can’t the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) operate STPs as a public service?

Well, there is a sound reason for that: using a local STP allows us to recycle nearly half of our total daily water usage. This brings down our freshwater demand by 50%. Then BWSSB will be able to distribute the same quantity of Kaveri water to double the population!

STPs should be regulated

Since 2005, the number of privately-owned STPs has been growing fast in the city. But in an unregulated market, a lot of substandard STPs were sold. These STPs have design and fabrication flaws, and cannot treat sewage even if they are run by the best operators. Even if the STPs are good, most of the operators in the market are unqualified, which again means they cannot treat the sewage properly.

Hence the solution is to regulate the design, fabrication, operation and maintenance of STPs. Section 17 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 lays down several measures to regulate these aspects. These responsibilities are assigned to KSPCB. These responsibilities include inspection and approval of new STPs, training of operators, spreading awareness among the public, etc.

Unfortunately, the Water Act remains mostly unimplemented even today. As a result, these areas have remained weak, and need reforms.

First, we will see what reforms are needed in the STP-approval process, and then, reforms needed in other areas.

1. Reforms needed in the STP-approval process

The STP-approval process has two stages – CFE and CFO:

1. In the first stage, KSPCB checks the design of the STP, and if the design is acceptable, issues CFE (Consent For Establishment) to the developer. This permits the developer to construct the STP as per the submitted plan.
2. The developer constructs the STP and then applies for the second approval, called CFO (Consent For Operation). Here, KSPCB checks if the STP is built correctly (as per the approved CFE) and is defect-free. If the STP passes the checks, KSPCB issues a CFO.

The developer can operationalise the STP only if they have the CFO.

Subsequently, throughout the life of the STP, KSPCB conducts annual inspections to check for ageing-related problems and tampering. When the STP passes each inspection, KSPCB extends the CFO by another year.

This process may seem perfect, but isn’t. At present, the CFE-CFO procedure is not formally documented. KSPCB does not use data collection forms to ensure that the process is executed consistently for all STPs. Most importantly, the developer simply abandons the STP, and quietly slips it over to the RWA without its explicit acceptance. Due to such factors, multiple defects remain in the STP, and apartment owners end up spending their hard-earned money to rectify these.

The following diagram shows the current practices for STP construction and approval on a timeline. (Click to see full-size image):

And the diagram below shows the timeline for the desired/ideal workflow.

Note:

• The timeline is not accurate; the gaps are only indicative.
• The part above the timeline shows the actions taken by the developer or the RWA (Residents Welfare Association).
• The part below the timeline shows the actions taken by the authorities (KSPCB/BBMP).

In all, the revised workflow has eight additional steps; and one step (CFO) is split into two separate steps (PCFO+FCFO).

The following table explains each event shown on the timeline. The table highlights the additional steps to be taken as per the desired/ideal workflow in pale green; and the step to be removed is highlighted in pink. The additional steps are also mentioned in bold letters.

2. Reforms needed in other areas:

If the CFE-CFO process is revamped, the RWA will get defect-free STPs. But is that enough?

For a moment, compare an STP with your car. How do you keep your car in the best condition? You begin by buying the best-possible car, and then take care of three human factors:

1. Even the best car can be ruined by a reckless driver. So you must have a careful driver for your car.
2. As the owner, you must be fairly conversant with its well-being. At the first sight of trouble, you must take it to service.
3. You must use a qualified service. Cutting corners means ruining the car.

Exactly the same factors work for STPs. We need STPs that are designed and fabricated well. In addition, we need good operators, knowledgeable owners and good maintenance service. But in the case of STPs, none of these factors are guaranteed currently!

1. Good STP designers:
   KSPCB has failed to develop a support system for the rapidly-growing number of private STPs. There is no system to ensure that only well-qualified STP designers are allowed to design and construct STPs. Worse, if your STP designer has neglected safety and ergonomics, you may be held liable for any accident inside the plant.
2. Good STP operators:
   KSPCB has not set up an education/training system to produce well-trained STP operators. So, even if you have a well-designed STP, if it is operated by an untrained person, your STP may not produce good results consistently.
3. Knowledgeable owners:
   Yes, you have an important role to play. But how knowledgeable are you as an STP owner? Worry not, we have published an STP Guide, which is downloadable from the KSPCB website. This comprehensive book covers the design, construction, operation, maintenance and troubleshooting of STPs. KSPCB should also arrange regular public training programmes on STPs for RWA members.
4. Good service:
   STPs need regular maintenance service and occasional breakdown service. This calls for qualified service providers. In addition, we need the services of tank cleaners who can handle raw sewage and sludge. An unqualified contractor can only ruin an STP. However, KSPCB does not maintain a list of approved vendors.

To conclude, KSPCB must revamp the CFE-CFO process, and also make major efforts in the four areas listed above.

See Also:

• Pollution watchdog’s penalty spree; Apartments get stay from court
• Apartments struggle with ‘manage your own’ sewage rule
• Bengaluru’s sewage treatment plants have no standard design

Footnotes:
1. This is the idea behind CFE stage. But in practice, KSPCB does not check these aspects.

2. Typical conditions are:
(a) Do not take external sewage for treatment in the STP;
(b) If either the quantity or quality of sewage changes, the proponent must seek a fresh CFO.

3. The STP is part of common areas. Other examples of common areas are clubhouse, swimming pool, water treatment plant, fire hydrant system etc.

4. Ideally, the raw sewage has to be transported to the designated BWSSB STP, but that is too expensive. So the developer simply dumps the raw sewage in a UGD line or even SWD, thus polluting it.

5. The current workflow does not have this step at all – once the STP gets CFO, it’s in the clear, and no one actively searches for operational faults.