Standard Drawings and Bills of Quantities for UWM infrastructure to support tendering processes
Collection and Conveyance infrastructure designs coming soon. Click to see what's planned!
SELECT YOUR SOLUTION TYPE
{{ solution.name }}
{{ solution.description }}
SELECT TECHNOLOGY
{{ tech.name }}
{{ tech.description }}
About {{ selectedTechnology.name }}
Sample Design Document ({{ r2FileMapping[selectedSolution.id][selectedTechnology.id].sample.capacity }}) Sample Design Document ({{ r2FileMapping[selectedSolution.id].technology_specific[selectedTechnology.id].sample.capacity }})Working Principle:
Soak pits are unlined or partially lined circular pits designed to allow used water to percolate directly into the surrounding soil through a filter media. The pit is typically filled with coarse materials such as rubble or brick bats, which create voids to facilitate infiltration and prevent immediate clogging.
A removable top cover should be provided to allow for regular inspection and maintenance. To enhance system performance and minimize clogging, it is recommended to use a settling tank as a pre-treatment step before the water enters the soak pit.
Suitability:
Soak pits are mostly used at the household level where the volume of used water is low, particularly for the disposal of supernatant from septic tanks. They are suitable in areas where the soil has good infiltration capacity, and the groundwater table is low (at least 1.5 meters below the bottom of the soak pit).
They are not suitable for: Flood-prone areas, Clayey or rocky soils, Soils with low permeability
Pros/Cons:
Pros:
Most economical option for small capacities
Cons:
May negatively affect soil and groundwater properties as it does not provide adequate treatment, and the pit will quickly clog.
O&M requirement:
Particles or biomass may clog the pit so cleaning or replacing the filter material once in 2 – 3 years or sooner if overflow or surface pooling is observed in the surrounding area.
Working Principle:
The working principle of a leach pit is similar to
that of a soak pit, with one key difference: the pit
is not filled with any filter media. It is an
unlined or partially lined circular pit designed to
allow used water to infiltrate directly into the
surrounding soil.
The structure is typically constructed using brick
masonry or pre-cast concrete rings. Unlike a soak
pit, which contains rubble or brick bats to aid
filtration, the leach pit remains empty, allowing
for increased hydraulic retention time—particularly
useful when managing higher volumes of used water.
This design facilitates gradual percolation of the
water into the soil.
A removable top cover must be provided to enable
periodic inspection and maintenance. To improve
system performance and reduce the risk of clogging,
it is recommended that settling tank be used as a
pre-treatment step before water enters the pit.
Suitability:
Leach pits are primarily used for the disposal of
used water, particularly greywater from households
or from drain endpoints where the volume is
relatively high (up to 10 KLD). They are suitable in
areas where the soil has good infiltration capacity,
and the groundwater table is low (at least 1.5
meters below the bottom of the soak pit).
They are not suitable for: Flood-prone areas, Clayey
or rocky soils, Soils with low permeability
Pros/Cons:
Pros: Can be built and repaired with locally
available materials, Low capital costs; low
operating costs, small land requirements
Cons: May negatively affect soil and groundwater
properties as it does not provide adequate
treatment, and the pit will quickly clog.
O&M requirement:
Over time, fine particles, silt, or biomass may
accumulate within the pit or around its infiltration
surfaces, leading to reduced percolation efficiency.
Periodic inspection is recommended, and the pit
should be cleaned or desilted every 2–3 years, or
sooner if overflow or surface pooling is observed in
the surrounding area.
Working Principle:
The EA-ASP is a modified activated sludge process
that operates with extended aeration and longer
sludge retention times, enhancing biological
treatment of used water. In this system, wastewater
is continuously aerated in an aeration tank to
promote microbial degradation of organic pollutants.
A secondary clarifier follows to separate treated
water from the biomass. The extended aeration
reduces sludge generation and stabilizes organic
matter more effectively. EA-ASP is simple to
operate, reliable, and suitable for small to
medium-sized towns with moderate flow variations.
Suitability:
Suitable for small to medium towns with consistent
flows and loads.
- Preferred where land availability is moderate, and
energy costs can be managed.
- Ideal for locations with limited technical staff,
as the system is relatively simple.
- Well-suited for decentralized or peri-urban
setups.
- Good choice for ULBs preferring robust,
easy-to-operate systems.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: Simple to operate and maintain,
well-stabilized sludge, Robust system for consistent
flows, no complex automation required
Cons: Requires large land area, higher civil
construction footprint, limited flexibility for load
fluctuations, energy demand for aeration
O&M requirement:
- Simple operation; minimal instrumentation
- Regular aerator/blower maintenance
- Periodic sludge wasting (less frequent due to
extended retention)
- Occasional tank cleaning and removal of scum/foam
- Suitable for operators with basic technical
training
Working Principle:
The SBR is a fill-and-draw type activated sludge
process where all treatment steps—equalization,
aeration, and sedimentation—occur sequentially in
the same tank. Wastewater is added in batches,
treated biologically through aeration, and then
allowed to settle before the treated effluent is
discharged. The process operates in defined cycles
(e.g., fill, react, settle, decant, idle) controlled
by automation. SBR systems provide effective removal
of BOD, COD, and nutrients. They are
space-efficient, flexible for varying loads, and
suitable for decentralized and municipal sewage
treatment.
Suitability:
Suitable for medium to large towns with with
automated operations and moderate to high used water
volumes.
- Works well in space-constrained locations due to
compact footprint.
- Best suited for areas with skilled operators and
where automation and reliable power supply are
available.
- Can handle flow and load variations, making it
good for municipal use.
- Ideal for automated, time-sequenced operations in
urban settings.
- Where higher treatment efficiency required
Pros/Cons:
Pros: Compact and space-efficient, high treatment
efficiency (BOD, COD, nutrients), Flexible to
flow/load variations, fully automated with minimal
operator intervention during operation
Cons: Requires highly skilled operators and
automation, high energy demand, sensitive to power
failures, higher O&M complexity
O&M requirement:
- Requires skilled operators to manage automated
cycle phases (fill, aerate, settle, decant)
- Daily monitoring of SCADA/PLC system
- Regular inspection and calibration of valves,
pumps, timers, and decanters
- Sludge removal at defined intervals
- Power backup systems needed due to reliance on
automation
Working Principle:
The MBBR system is a compact, aerobic biological
treatment process that uses suspended plastic media
(carriers) within an aeration tank to support
biofilm growth. As used water flows through the
tank, microorganisms on the media degrade organic
pollutants. Continuous aeration keeps the media in
motion, enhancing contact between the wastewater and
biofilm. The system requires a secondary clarifier
for solid-liquid separation. MBBR is
energy-efficient, has a small footprint, and
performs well under variable loading conditions. It
is suitable for treating municipal sewage and can be
used for upgrading existing systems.
Suitability:
- Suitable for small to medium towns with space
limitations.
- Good for areas with moderate to variable organic
loading.
- Suitable where biological treatment is preferred
with less operator intervention.
- Performs efficiently under shock loads and flow
variations.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: Compact footprint, handles load fluctuations
well, low sludge generation, easier to operate than
SBR, suitable for retrofitting/upgrading existing
plants
Cons: Continuous aeration required, moderate energy
consumption, biofilm media needs
monitoring/replacement, not ideal for high nutrient
removal
O&M requirement:
- Routine monitoring of aeration system (blower
operation, DO levels)
- Periodic cleaning/checking of diffusers and
carrier media
- Occasional inspection of media retention screens
to prevent clogging
- Sludge removal from secondary clarifier as
required
- Lower operator skill requirement than SBR
Working Principle:
DEWATS systems are based on modular technical
configuration concept. Modules chosen for used water
treatment consist of Settling tank (ST) for primary
treatment, Anaerobic baffle reactor (ABR) with
integrated filter (AF) for secondary treatment and
Horizontal flow planted filter (HFPF) for tertiary
treatment, polishing pond (if required for post
treatment). Used water is passed through all these
modules in sequence for treatment.
Suitability:
DEWATS (Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems)
are designed based on the principle of low
maintenance and energy-efficient operation. The
modular combination of DEWATS components is
well-suited for treating used water generated from
housing communities or collected from drain
endpoints with high volumes of used water. The
treated effluent typically meets quality standards
for safe reuse, particularly for landscape
irrigation and non-food crops.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: DEWATS modules can be built and repaired with
locally available materials and do not require
energy or skilled labour and low in operations and
maintenance cost as compared to electro-mechanically
operated technologies. The units can be designed and
easily integrated to blend with the surrounding
landscape and produce a good quality effluent that
can be reused.
Cons: Area requirement and capital cost is moderate
to high.
O&M requirement:
Regular emptying of sludge (once in 2 to 3 years)
and scum (once in 6 months) from ST and AF, cleaning
(or replacement) of filter media once in 3 to 5
years in the AF and HFPF, harvesting of plants in
the HFPF.
Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSPs) are large,
human-made water bodies in which used water are
treated by naturally occurring processes under the
influence of sun light, wind, microorganisms and
algae. The ponds can be used individually, or linked
in a series for improved treatment. There are three
types of ponds in series (1) anaerobic, (2)
facultative and (3) aerobic (maturation), each with
different treatment and design characteristics.
Suitability:
Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSPs) are appropriate for
towns and cities with large, open, and unused land
areas, preferably located away from residential
zones and public spaces. They are particularly
well-suited for tropical and subtropical regions,
where ample sunlight and warm temperatures enhance
the natural treatment process. WSPs are especially
effective for treating used water collected from
drain endpoints, particularly where high volumes of
used water are generated. The treated effluent is
generally of a quality suitable for irrigation and
agricultural reuse.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: WSPs are low capex and opex based system, can
be built and repaired with locally available
materials, system does not require electrical
energy, basic skill requirement for O&M, can produce
good quality effluent which is safe for its reuse.
Cons: WSPs require a large area. Ponds require
regular sludge removal (especially anaerobic pond)
to avoid excessive accumulation, as removing large
volumes at once can be time-consuming and difficult
to manage. They may produce undesirable odors, and
mosquito control is required.
O&M requirement:
Scum that builds up on the pond surface should be
regularly removed, aquatic plants that are present
in the pond should be removed as they may provide a
breeding habitat for mosquitoes and prevent light
from penetrating the water column. The anaerobic
pond must be de-sludged approximately once every 2
to 5 years. De-scumming and de-sludging of ponds
need to be carried out as per the schedule to avoid
odor nuisance.
Working Principle:
Sludge Drying Bed (SDB) is a shallow, rectangular
structure filled with layers of graded filter media,
typically comprising sand and gravel of varying
sizes and thicknesses. The bed is generally open to
the atmosphere and is equipped with a drainage
system at the base to collect percolate or leachate.
An anaerobic digester can be deployed for digestion
of sludge before application on the sludge drying
beds, if required. Sludge is applied evenly over the
top sand layer, and water drains through the filter
media by gravity. An underdrain system collects the
leachate, which is then directed either to a liquid
treatment facility for further treatment. In
addition to percolation, surface evaporation
accelerates the drying process. The dried sludge is
manually removed, usually after 10–15 days,
depending on local climatic conditions and sludge
characteristics.
Suitability:
- Suitable for small to medium towns with moderate
sludge generation.
- Ideal where land is available, and climate is warm
and dry.
- Can be used where periodical sludge removal is
feasible manually.
- Suitable where no skilled manpower or electricity
is available.
- Can be adopted where mechanical drying is not
preferred or practical.
- Effective in remote locations with basic
infrastructure
Pros/Cons:
Pros: Simple to construct and operate, low capital
and operating cost, no energy or mechanical
equipment required, uses locally available materials
Cons: Requires manual removal of sludge
periodocally, drying time depends heavily on local
weather conditions, can produce odor if not properly
managed, prone to clogging over time, frequent
maintenance of sand layer needed
O&M requirement:
Periodic removal of dried sludge (typically every
10–15 days depending on drying time)
Regular cleaning or replacement of the sand layer to
prevent clogging
Monitoring of drainage system to ensure proper
leachate flow
Odor control through proper loading and timely
sludge removal
Maintenance of bed leveling and weeding if any
vegetation grows unintentionally
Working Principle:
Planted Drying Bed (PDB) is a shallow, rectangular
bed consisting of multiple layers—coarse gravel at
the bottom, a sand filtration layer in the middle,
and a top layer planted with specific wetland
vegetation such as Canna indica or Phragmites
australis. The bed is open to the atmosphere and
equipped with a drainage system at the base to
collect leachate or percolate. Sludge is applied
uniformly over the sand surface, and water
percolates downward through the filter media by
gravity. The leachate is collected by an underdrain
system and directed to a liquid treatment facility
for further treatment.
The vegetation plays a critical role in enhancing
treatment performance. Plants promote drying through
evapotranspiration, improve infiltration through
root channel formation, and facilitate aerobic
microbial activity that aids in sludge
stabilization. Nutrient uptake by plants also
contributes to improved leachate quality,
Suitability:
Suitable for locations with limited human resources
where frequent sludge removal is not feasible
Suitable for small to medium towns with moderate
sludge generation.
Performs well in tropical/subtropical climates with
adequate sunlight.
Ideal where better sludge stabilization and odor
control are required.
Useful in locations with high organic sludge
content, requiring improved stabilization.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: Faster and more efficient drying due to
plant-assisted evapotranspiration, improved sludge
stabilization and reduced odor, lower risk of
clogging due to root channels, reduced sludge
handling frequency, contributes to a greener,
nature-based solution
Cons: Slightly higher land and construction
requirements, requires periodic plant harvesting and
care, may require more time to establish (plant
growth phase), performance may vary with plant
health and season
O&M requirement:
Sludge removal every 1 to 3 years depending on
design, sludge loading and drying time.
- Regular harvesting or pruning of plants to
maintain root health and effective
evapotranspiration.
- Monitoring plant health, replanting if mortality
occurs.
- Occasional de-weeding to avoid invasive growth
- Maintenance of Sand layer
- Check and maintain leachate drainage system.
| Parameter | Design Value | Unit | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydraulic retention time | 2 | Days | assumed |
| GWT below soak pit below slab | min 2 | m | assumed |
| Parameter | Design Value | Unit | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hydraulic retention time | 2 | Days | assumed |
| GWT below leach pit below slab | min 2 | m | assumed |
| Parameter | Design Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Influent Characteristics | ||
| BOD | 250 | mg/l |
| COD | 500 | mg/l |
| Hydraulic retention time | 2 | Hours |
| Peak hours | 8 | Hours |
| SS/COD ratio | 0.45 | - |
| De-sludging interval | 18 | Months |
| Effluent Characteristics | ||
| BOD (At PGF Outlet) | < 30 | mg/l |
| COD (At PGF Outlet) | < 250 | mg/l |
Note: In DEWATS design, peak flow is typically based on an 8-hour inflow duration aligned with daily wastewater generation patterns. This can be extended to 14–16 hours using an equalization tank with a pump sump, which regulates flow through controlled pumping. This approach, ideal for flows above 500 KLD, helps to reduce treatment unit size, land footprint, and capital cost. However, it increases O&M needs due to continuous pump operation and is suitable where reliable pump performance can be ensured.
Technical Assumptions:
- • It is assumed that the site is a fairly level site with minor variations in levels.
- • The Safe Bearing Capacity for the foundation design of the civil structures is assumed as 10 Tons/Sqm at a depth of 1.5m below the existing ground level.
- • The Design Water Table for the design of the civil units of the STP is assumed at 5.0m below the Natural Ground Level.
General Assumptions for Civil Work Cost Estimation:
- • There is vehicular access available to the site.
- • The site is fairly level ground, free of any structures, large trees requiring cutting permission, any kind of underground or overhead utilities, etc. except for small shrub's, vegetation, etc.
- • The soil profile of the site involves earth work excavation in soil only, excavation involving rock blasting is not necessary.
- • The site is not a low-lying area or marshy land or sewage farm, etc.
- • The site is with original soil profile, without deep filling or overburden.
| Parameter | Design Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Influent Characteristics | ||
| BOD | 250 | mg/l |
| COD | 500 | mg/l |
| Pond Configuration | ||
| Number of Anaerobic Pond (AP) | 1 | No |
| Number of Facultative Pond (FP) | 2 | No |
| Number of Maturation Pond (MP) | 3 | No |
| Slope of each pond | 1:1.5 | - |
| Effluent Characteristics | ||
| BOD (At PGF Outlet) | < 30 | mg/l |
| COD (At PGF Outlet) | < 250 | mg/l |
Technical Assumptions:
- • It is assumed that the site is a fairly level site with minor variations in levels.
- • The Design Water Table for the design of the civil units of the STP is assumed at 5.0m below the Natural Ground Level.
General Assumptions for Civil Work Cost Estimation:
- • There is vehicular access available to the site.
- • The site is fairly level ground, free of any structures, large trees requiring cutting permission, any kind of underground or overhead utilities, etc. except for small shrub's, vegetation, etc.
- • The soil profile of the site involves earth work excavation in soil only, excavation involving rock blasting is not necessary.
- • The site is not a low-lying area or marshy land or sewage farm, etc.
- • The site is with original soil profile, without deep filling or overburden.
For all capacity STPs, the following will be the raw sewage characteristics for the design of the STPs:
| Parameter | Design Value | Unit | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 6.5 to 7.5 | - | Assumed |
| Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) | 1500 | mg/l | Assumed |
| Total Suspended Solids (TSS) | 375 | mg/l | CPHEEO |
| Oil & Grease | 40 | mg/l | Assumed |
| BOD₃ | 250 | mg/l | CPHEEO |
| COD | 425 | mg/l | CPHEEO |
| Total Nitrogen | 50 | mg/l | CPHEEO |
| Ammonia Nitrogen (as N) | 32.5 | mg/l | CPHEEO |
| Organic Nitrogen | 12.5 | mg/l | CPHEEO |
| Phosphates (as P) | 7.1 | mg/l | CPHEEO |
| Total Hardness | 300 | mg/l | Assumed |
| Reactive Silica | 30 | mg/l | Assumed |
| Total Alkalinity | 400 | mg/l | Assumed |
| Faecal Coliform | 1 × 10⁶ | MPN/100 | Assumed (No industrial effluent contamination allowed) |
The following will be the treated sewage characteristics for the design of the STPs:
| Parameter | At Secondary Outlet | At Tertiary Plant Outlet | At UF Outlet | At RO Outlet | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PARAMETERS AS PER NGT | |||||
| pH | 6.5 to 7.5 | 6.5 to 7.5 | 6.5 to 7.5 | 6.5 to 7.5 | - |
| Total Suspended Solids | 20 | 10 | < 1 | < 1 | mg/l |
| BOD₃ | 10 | 7 | 5 | 2 | mg/l |
| COD | 50 | < 50 | < 50 | < 50 | mg/l |
| Total Nitrogen (as N) | 10 | < 10 | < 10 | < 10 | mg/l |
| Total Phosphates (as P) | 1 | < 1 | < 1 | < 1 | mg/l |
| Faecal Coliform | 230 | < 230 | 100 | < 100 | MPN/100 |
| PARAMETERS OTHER THAN NGT | |||||
| Total Dissolved Solids | As Arising | As Arising | As Arising | < 100 | mg/l |
| Oil & Grease | 1 | < 1 | < 1 | < 1 | mg/l |
| Ammoniacal Nitrogen (as N) | 5 | < 5 | < 5 | < 5 | mg/l |
| Turbidity | - | - | < 0.1 | < 0.1 | NTU |
Technical Assumptions:
- • It is assumed that the site is a fairly level site with minor variations in levels.
- • The Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC) for the foundation design of the civil structures is assumed as 10 Tons/Sq.m at a depth of 1.5m below the existing ground level.
- • The Design Water Table for the design of the civil units of the STP is assumed at 5.0m below the Natural Ground Level.
General Assumptions for Civil Work Cost Estimation:
- • There is vehicular access available to the site.
- • The site is fairly level ground, free of any structures, large trees requiring cutting permission, any kind of underground or overhead utilities, etc. except for small shrub's, vegetation, etc.
- • The soil profile of the site involves earth work excavation in soil only, excavation involving rock blasting is not considered.
- • The site is not a low lying area or marshy land or sewage farm, etc.
- • The site is with original soil profile, without deep filling or overburden.
| Parameter | Design Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Thickening Tank | ||
| Desired TS in thickened sludge | 5 | % |
| Settling efficiency | 60 | % |
| Sludge retention time | 6 | Days |
| Operational Cycle | ||
| Feeding phase | 3 | days |
| Resting phase | 2 | days |
| Emptying phase | 1 | day |
| Surface loading rate (SLR) | 30-45 | kg TS /m²/day |
| Up flow velocity | 0.5 | m/hr |
| Length to Width ratio | 3:1 | - |
| Height of oil and grease zone | 0.2 to 0.3 | m |
| Sludge Drying Bed (SDB) | ||
| Sludge thickness | 0.25 | m |
| Number of beds | 10 | Nos |
| Days of application in a week | 5 | Days |
| Feeding frequency in a bed | Once in 15 | days |
| Leachate/percolate from SDB | ||
| BOD | 200 | mg/l |
| COD | 400 | mg/l |
| Hydraulic retention time | 2 | Hours |
| Peak hours | 4 | Hours |
| SS/COD ratio | 0.45 | - |
| De-sludging interval in Settler | 18 | Months |
The following will be the treated sewage characteristics for the design of the FSTP-SDB:
| Parameter | At PGF Outlet | At ACF+PSF Outlet | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effluent Characteristics | |||
| BOD | < 30 | < 10 | mg/l |
| COD | < 100 | < 50 | mg/l |
General Assumptions for Civil Work Cost Estimation:
- • There is vehicular access available to the site.
- • The site is fairly level ground, free of any structures, large trees requiring cutting permission, any kind of underground or overhead utilities, etc. except for small shrub's, vegetation, etc.
- • The soil profile of the site involves earth work excavation in soil only, excavation involving rock blasting is not necessary.
- • The site is not a low-lying area or marshy land or sewage farm, etc.
- • The site is with original soil profile, without deep filling or overburden.
| Parameter | Design Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Planted Drying Bed | ||
| Total Solids (TS) | 30 | Kg/cum |
| FS loading rate on beds | 300 | kg/m²/year |
| Days of application in a week | 5 | Days |
| Factor of safety (in total area) | 10 | % |
| Number of beds (Total) | 10 | Nos |
| Number of beds operational and standby | 5 + 5 | Nos |
| Sludge feeding frequency per bed | 8 | Once in Days |
| Leachate/percolate from PDB | ||
| BOD | 200 | mg/l |
| COD | 400 | mg/l |
| Hydraulic retention time | 2 | Hours |
| Peak hours | 4 | Hours |
| SS/COD ratio | 0.45 | - |
| De-sludging interval in Settler | 18 | Months |
The following will be the treated sewage characteristics:
| Parameter | At PGF Outlet | At ACF+PSF Outlet | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effluent Characteristics | |||
| BOD | < 30 | < 10 | mg/l |
| COD | < 100 | < 50 | mg/l |
General Assumptions for Civil Work Cost Estimation:
- • There is vehicular access available to the site.
- • The site is fairly level ground, free of any structures, large trees requiring cutting permission, any kind of underground or overhead utilities, etc. except for small shrub's, vegetation, etc.
- • The site is with original soil profile, without deep filling or overburden.
- • The soil profile of the site involves earth work excavation in soil only, excavation involving rock blasting is not necessary.
- • The site is not a low-lying area or marshy land or sewage farm, etc.
SELECT CAPACITY
CONFIGURE MODULES
Core Modules (mandatory; included)
{{ module.name }}
{{ module.description }}
{{ category.name }} (optional; choose-one)
{{ option.name }}
{{ option.description }}
YOUR FILES ARE READY!
Core Modules (Mandatory)
Selected Modules
Design Files
Usage Guidelines
- Please read "Disclaimer" for usage notes before using the drawings and Bill of Quantities
- Refer to design criteria and sample designs to understand design approaches
- Adequate contingency provisions should be included in the cost estimates to account for variations in local conditions (e.g., approach road, soil bearing capacity)
- Users are encouraged to apply their professional judgment, technical expertise, and contextual knowledge in using these drawings and Bill of Quantities
About This Portal
India's urban sanitation landscape is undergoing a major transformation under the Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0 (SBM 2.0), a flagship initiative of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Government of India. A key focus area of SBM 2.0 is Used Water Management (UWM)—a critical component for ensuring safe sanitation for all and achieving the targets outlined in Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6).
With rapid urbanization and rising volumes of used water generated from domestic sources across thousands of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), there is an urgent need to plan and implement treatment infrastructure that is appropriate, scalable, and sustainable. However, selecting the right technology, developing context-specific designs, and estimating project costs continue to pose significant challenges for ULBs and practitioners involved in sanitation planning.
To address this gap and support more effective planning and implementation of UWM systems, MoHUA, in collaboration with the WASH Institute, has developed this dedicated web-based portal. This portal serves as a technical decision-support tool to accelerate used water management interventions across the country. It features a curated menu of widely used treatment technologies, along with associated standard designs, technical drawings, and quantity estimates (BoQs). Users can select technologies based on their specific needs, download comprehensive design packages, and apply local rate schedules to estimate project costs.
The designs, drawings, and estimates available on the portal have been developed by experienced sector professionals in accordance with CPHEEO guidelines and established best practices. For electro-mechanical treatment systems, the designs were further reviewed and vetted by leading industry experts to ensure alignment with current standards. All technologies included on the portal have been assessed for practical applicability and are already in use across various ULBs throughout India.
By providing easy access to standardized and reliable resources, the portal aims to streamline technology selection, reduce duplication of effort, and accelerate the pace of UWM implementation across the country.
Importantly, the portal is not intended to be a static repository. It is designed as a dynamic and evolving platform that can grow through contributions from practitioners and institutions. Future updates will include the integration of state-specific rate data, enabling users to generate real-time cost estimates.
Usage Notes and Disclaimer
This portal is designed to support ULBs with readily available drawings and BoQs for administrative/technical sanctions and DBOT tendering process.
- Download the relevant drawings and estimates and check them before use
- Adopt locally applicable Schedule of Rates (SoR) and construction practices to arrive at cost estimates
The designs, drawings, and bills of quantities (BoQs) provided on this portal are intended for reference purposes only. MoHUA and WASH Institute or other contributors to this portal are in no way responsible for the usage of the contents provided.
These drawings and BoQs cannot be used directly for construction purposes.
In case, a practitioner wishes to use these resources to develop construction drawings, the following should be considered:
- It is essential to incorporate site-specific data and consider actual site conditions such as topography, soil type, availability of land, climatic factors, and proximity to households or discharge locations.
- Sizing and dimensions of the units provided are based on assumptions related to flow, organic load, and design parameters. These must be revised based on actual flow measurements, water quality data, and project-specific design inputs.
- Master plans and General Arrangement Drawings (GADs) must be customized based on the local context and site layout.
- Each treatment technology is presented through multiple modular units (For example in case of DEWATS - settler, anaerobic baffled reactor, drying bed, etc.). Based on the required level of treatment and available space, appropriate modules should be selected and adapted accordingly.
It is the responsibility of the user to validate the design assumptions, make necessary customizations, and ensure compliance with applicable national or state-level standards, environmental norms, and discharge regulations.
The portal's contents aim to serve as a technical guide and planning aid—final designs must be prepared and vetted by a qualified engineer or designer with experience in wastewater treatment system design.
Collection and Conveyance Infrastructure
The following Collection and Conveyance infrastructure designs are being developed and will be available in future updates:
Collection and Conveyance
Faecal sludge
Used water
De-sludging trucks
(Collection and conveyance of faecal sludge)
Sewer system-
Gravity and rising main
(Conveyance of used water)
Interception and diversion structure
(Diversion of used water in drains to the sewer network)
IPS/SPS
(Pumping of used water to a higher level)
UWM Planning Methodology
There are 5 stages for local governments to follow while planning and implementing used water management projects. Stages for UWM implementation
Stage 1: UWM Plan and Project Formulation
Prerequisite: If CSAP approved, to identify projects
Output: Comprehensive plan with list of projects to manage 100% used water using right mix of solutions.
Stage 2: DPR Preparation
Prerequisite: If projects identified, to prepare DPR
Output: Detailed project reports for each UWM project, as per CPHEEO norms
Stage 3: Tendering – Bid Management
Prerequisite: If DPR approved, to prepare bid documents
Output: Bidding documents and specifications needed to hire contractors
Stage 4: Construction
Prerequisite: If contractor hired, to monitor the construction and commissioning
Output: Checklist to ensure implementation as per applicable IS standards
Stage 5: Operation and Maintenance
Prerequisite: If construction in last phase, to initiate O&M
Output: SOPs for monitoring the infrastructure in the O&M stage
This portal supports Stage 3 by providing standardized technical drawings and cost estimates to streamline the tendering process.
Download Verification
Please provide your details to access the documents
Personal Information
Professional Information
Address Information
Usage Information
Enter the 6-digit OTP sent to
{{ userInfo.email }}
Verification Successful!
Your download will start shortly...
Your information is used only for verification and improving our services. We respect your privacy.
Help Us Improve
Thank You!
Your feedback helps us improve our services