Transcript Hyderabad India

EWB – Eco-San Without Borders
Provision of Community Toilet in Highly
Congested Urban Slum in Hyderabad
(Rasoolpura)
Members:
1) Laikram Kaushal
2) Mahamaya Pratap Singh
3) Md.Moinuddin
4) M.A.Kaleem
5) M.A.Waheed
6) Umesh Pakalapati
BackGround
Rasoolpura
- Population – 45,000 (approx)
- Individual Water Connections – 25-30 %
- Sanitation Coverage at individual
household level – 60%
- Water Supply – 2hrs in two days
- Majority dependant on Public Water Taps and
Tankers – leads to disputes and fighting
- Groundwater Supplied through Public lines for
washing and cleaning purposes – 3hrs a day
► The
sewage is drained out
from the area through a
combination of Underground
Sewers and Open channels.
► The slum is situated around a natural stream
which is filled with domestic and industrial
wastes being drained from upstream areas.
► During monsoons the above stream overflows
into homes in the slum due to choking by
indiscriminate dumping of Municipal Solid waste
and Construction debris.
► Municipal Solid Waste Removal is very bad due
to poor service by Municipality
Open Channel Passing through the Slum
Problems Galore
► The
poor and intermittent water supply results
in a public health problem – the coping costs of
which are particularly high on the poorest
sections.
► Due to inadequate water supply people are
forced to tap groundwater in larger quantities
resulting in falling groundwater levels.
► Inadequate drainage network results in
frequent overflows and unlined sewers lead to
continuous groundwater pollution (14/19
samples tested positive for E-coli contamination
– Source – IPM Hyderabad)
► Poor
Solid waste management results in an
unhygienic situation leading to a public health
problem.
► Poor
groundwater quality results in a general
degradation of public health.
► Disease
outbreaks are common –
Chickungunya, Typhoid, etc.
Toilets – Current Scenario
► Coverage
– Numbers vary from 40-60%.
► Community toilets – 6 (functional – 5)
► Built by Cantonment Board which is the local
authority.
► No grants for maintenance and no system of
user fees.
► Results in very poorly maintained toilets.
► The public toilets are connected to Septic
Tanks.
► There is no running water facility in the
community toilets.
Public Toilet
Women’s Toilet
Septic Tank
Gents Urinal
►
1)
2)
3)
4)
Most of the times one finds completely
choked toilet seats.
Reasons are –
No Dedicated service providers
Due to lack of running water and a situation
of poor water availability people come only
with a mug of water for anal cleansing but not
flushing.
No lighting facilities lead to poor usage by
women.
When septic tank is filled up it is not emptied
quickly and hence usage goes down.
These situations lead to open defecation.
Open Defecation – A Menace
►
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
The problem of open defecation is very rampant and
has the proportions of a menace. Main reasons are:
Average home size is 25-35 sq.yds. – less space
available for toilets.
Family size is large leading to excess load on the
existing toilets.
Low and intermittent water availability.
Fear of early filling of septic tank leading to kids
being sent out for defecation
Lack of safely designed toilets for children.
Poorly ventilated toilets leading people to seek
fresher (read - open) environs for defecation.
Project details
► Provision
of a community toilet in the slum.
► Expected number of beneficiaries :800 to
1000 approximately.
► To provide a system to treat the waste and
explore recycling and reuse of nutrients and
water.
Objective
► To
design and develop with the partnership
of the community an integrated and holistic
sanitation system based on sound
environmental, sociological and economic
principles, that can be replicated with ease
in different parts of the country with similar
backgrounds.
IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS
► Users
– Women, Men, Children, Elderly and Disabled
► Community Groups – Students, Religious Leaders,
SHGs, Youth Groups,
► Local Government and Service Providers – SCB
(Secunderabad Cantonment Board), Hyderabad Water
Board, Small Private Suppliers of Water
► Facilitators – NGOs (Bhumi, SPD, J TSM) and CBOs,
Educational Institutions (MJCET)
► Political Representatives – MLA, Councilors
► Financing Agencies - Bank (through a loan to SHG),
Donor Agencies (Institutional and Individual)
Role of stakeholders
► Users
: Basic responsibility of agreeing on design and
maintenance issues as wells as regular maintenance of
the system.
► Community Groups – For convincing on usefulness of
technologies as well as for conflict resolution.
► Local Government and Service Providers – Financing
the project and integrating the project with the central
systems.
► Facilitators – For Awareness Campaigns, Education
and Training Programs and as a catalyst for change,
Research on Local applicability and design
modifications.
► Political Representatives – In providing linkages to
State agencies and in facilitating wider acceptability.
► Financing Agencies – For providing the seed capital
and suggest optimal investment recovery options.
User needs and priorities
► Common
Needs for all user groups -
►Easy
access
►Water Availability
►Clean Interiors and,
►Clean Surroundings
► Specific
Needs
►Women
– Safety and Privacy– Lighting and Access.
►Men – More Urinals.
►Children – Safe and Accessible Designs – Water and toilet
seat access, low level urinals for kids.
►Elderly – Slip proof floors and physical support designs,
strain free access.
►Disabled – Disabled friendly and Easy Access.
Awareness Approaches
► An
awareness campaign focused on Public Health and
Human Dignity will be resorted to.
► A series of preparatory meetings with key people of
different stakeholder groups and later a bigger
meeting with all of these people combined.
► IEC material comprising Posters, Pamphlets, and use
of an existing Newsletter coupled with AV material will
be used extensively.
► Street plays for educating on how open defecation is a
social evil and how a good ecological sanitation model
can help overcome various problems associated.
► Participatory exercises to calculate coping costs of bad
sanitation.
Informed Choice
► People
will be explained about the problems
with their present sanitation systems – ground
water pollution, excess usage of water with no
reuse potential, public health problems and so
on.
► People will be given details on various options
available and then the advantages and
disadvantages of each option with respect to
factors like costs, maintenance, ease of usage,
environmental problems etc will be done.
► Views can be collected by Questionnaires,
Focused Group Discussions etc.
Snapshot of Situation for
Considering Technical Options
► Nature
of Toilet - Community toilet
► Users – 600-800
► Water – Available through bore well newly drilled
► Space available – 60feet* 14 feet
► Outlet – Closed pipe – 9 inches dia also linked to
household outlets along the way
► Final outlet – open nala (stream)
► Reuse options for H20 – Very Less
► Funds Available – 5-5.5 lacs
► Pay and use model being considered
Existing Toilet
4 seats – 2 for men and 2 for women
Septic tank beside toilet
Rough sketch
School Building
14
F
E
E
T
Septic tank
Toilet
60 feet
O
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
Road – width – 10 feet
Sewer
Pipe
Possible Sanitation Concepts
►
1.
2.
3.
►
Specific Constraints are lack of space - ≤ 70
sq.m. and congested access with very little
scope for reuse of treated water.
A conventional toilet with flush and forget
system.
UDD toilets (very difficult to ensure smooth
operation)
Normal Flush Toilets with Biogas Generation
leading to ABR + Up flow filter and emptying
out into an existing sewer.
1st and 3rd systems above will not be
examples of an ideal ecosan model.
Relative Advantages and Disadvantages
of Different Models
►
Normal Flush Toilet + Cheaper to build, No expertise required,
people familiar – Does not solve problem, transfers
downstream, no reuse of nutrients, energy or water
►
UDD toilets + Only costs are those of the superstructure, low
expertise required, easy to operate, water saving – Very
difficult to train 800 people and monitor proper use, have to
train even visitors and guests, possibility of misuse and
subsequent failure very high
►
Flush Toilets+Biogas Generation+ABR + Up flow filter emptying
out into an existing sewer { + treats excreta to a reasonable
level, Potential for reuse of energy, Minimises pollution to
certain extent, Low maintenance – Expertise of high level
needed, More costly for initial construction
Zeroing Down
► The
group decided to pursue the option of
Flush Toilets+ Biogas Generation + ABR +
Up flow filter emptying out into an existing
sewer as a challenge.
► If not feasible the option of a normal toilet
is probably the only one which remains
which can be pursued anytime.
Re-Use
► The
influent is a mix of Urine + Feces + Water (Grey
and Black) with High BOD and Pathogenic Organisms
and is rich with nutrients like Nitrates, Phosphates and
Organic Carbon
► In the Biogas Chamber some of the nutrients will be
converted to Energy in the form of Biogas (Methane +
CO2) with some reduction of Pathogens (30%)
► In ABR the organic material is digested further and
pathogen reduction will occur (40%).
► The effluent will still be high in Pathogen Content and
hence cannot be reused and hence will be let out into a
Sewer.
► Reuse of Water will not be possible and it will be lost.
Detailed Technical Concept
► Basic
Numbers and Assumptions
 Number of Users – 800 (+15% variability) – 920
users
 Avg. Uses per person 1.5 – 1380 uses
 Water Used per Use – 5 ltrs
 Hand Wash – 1ltr/use
 Total Water Generated – 8280ltrs  8.3kld
 Number of seats required – 23 @ 1 seat/40 persons
 Space required for Individual Seat – 4X4 feet
 Space available – 47X14 feet
 Seats Possible including superstructure  20 seats
 10 – female, 08 – male, 1- each for children
Peak Flow Estimates
2000
1800
liters
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
ltrs
1
4
7
10
13
Hours
16
19
22
Flow Chart
Drainage
Up flow filter
Pathogen, BOD,
COD Reduction
ABR
Biogas Settler Tank
Toilet Flush
BOD & COD Load Estimation and
Biogas Settler Design Calculations
► Specific
BOD Load per person (assumed) – 54g/day
 Total BOD load = 49.68kg
 Total Volume of Water = 8280ltrs
 Average BOD = 6000 mg/l
► COD
load is assumed to be double that of BOD Load
12000 mg/l
►
According to a BORDA excel-sheet on the sizing of biogas settlers, BOD and COD
removal by means of biogas settlers (at a hydraulic detention time of 24 hours) is
about 36% and 34%
►
BOD reduction with 1 day retention time is
6000x0.35 = 2100mg/l
►  COD reduction with 1 day retention time is
12000x0.34 = 4080mg/l
► For
calculation of the sludge accumulation
volume (VSL) assumed specific sludge
production to be 0.0037 litres per gram BOD
removed and desludging frequency to be 18
months
► VSL = .0037 * (6000-2100) *
8280*30*18/1000*1000 = 64m3
► VD (Detention Volume) @ 1day retention time =
8280x1/1000 = 8.28 m3
► At 24 hours HRT, 15 – 20 % of VD can be taken
for estimating the volume to be provided for
the scum layer (VSC) VSC = 8.28 x 0.2 = 1.66m3
► The
required gas storage volume (VG) is
determined by the theoretical specific methane
production and the amount of COD removed.
Theoretical specific methane (CH4) yield at
standard temperature and pressure conditions
(STP: 0°C and atmospheric pressure) is ca.
0.25 kg CH4 or about 0.35 liters CH4 per gram
COD removed. Allowing for a safety margin of
25% and assuming the CH4 content of biogas
to be 60% (common values are 50% to 70%),
the gasholder storage volume (VG) is thus:
► VG = 1.25{ .35x(120004080)x8280}/1000000x0.6 = 136.62m3
► Therefore total storage capacity =
64+8.28+1.66+136.6 = 210.54m3
► The
equation of the volume of a hemisphere
can be rearranged to calculate the hemisphere
radius (RBS) of the biogas settler. The net
volume of the biogas settler (VBS) to be 210.54
m3. Hence halfmeter RBS is  5.94m
Bio Gas Settler
► Calculation
of Size
 1.5 days retention time – Volume 10.35kl +10% =
11.38kl
 Expected Gas – 920 users X 40 lppd = 36,800
 @ 40% gas production biogas expected is
14,720lpd
 Dimensions of Digester – from Material given
ABR Design Calculations
► Requirements
: Upflow velocity should be less
than 1.5 m/hr.
► Estimated peak flow: 1840 l/hr (1.84 m3/hr)
► Assumptions: Cross section of individual reactor
1.5m2.
► Achieved flow velocity : 1.84/1.5=1.23m/hr.
► Providing 5 chambers in ABR and an additional
settling chamber.
After ABR we will be providing 4 up flow filters of same
dimensions to improve treatment efficiency
Cost Estimation
ABR and UF
► Rough
cost estimation of baffle reactor (BR) is INR
5000-6500 per cubic metre.
► Area covered by one BR is 1.5 m2 and that by settling
chamber is 2.5m2 . Total area is (1.5*5+ 2.5) =10m2
► The area of one up flow filter (UF) is 1.5m2 . The total
area for UF is (4*1.5) = 6m2
► Total area is 16m2
► Height of ABR or UF is 2m.
► Total volume is 2*16=32m3
► Total cost of ABR+ UF is 32*5000= INR 1,60,000/-
Toilet Building
No of Seats in the Toilet – 20
Approximate Cost @ INR 40,000/seat = 8,00,000
Total Costs Known so far
Toilet – 8,00,000
ABR+UF – 1,60,000
Biogas Settler – Unknown
Constructed Wetland – 80,000
Polishing Pond – 30,000
Generator (Bio Gas) – 75,000
Street Lighting – 50,000
Water Supply – 2,00,000
Miscellaneous – 1,00,000
Awareness Raising, Capacity Building,
and Program Costs
►
►
►
►
►
Stakeholder Meetings – 5 x 4000 = 20,000
Capacity Building Programs – 5 x 5000 = 25,000
IEC Material – 20,000
DPR Preparation – Consultancy – 75,000
Project Implementation Team –







►
►
►
►
PC – 12,000 x 12 – 1,44,000
Junior PCs 2 x 8000 x 12 = 1,92,00
Accountant – 5000 x 12 = 60,000
Community Organisers – 3 x 4,000 x 12 = 1,44,000
Office Assistant – 3,000 x 12 = 36,000
DPR Preparation – Consultancy – 75,000
Auditing – 15,000
Office Rent – 4 x 12 = 48,000
Communications – 3 x 12 = 36,000
Local Travel – 4 x 12 = 48,000
PC and Printer – 40,000
User/Stakeholder Training
S
Stakeholder Needs
no.
Capacity Building
Tools
1
Users
Public Health Importance ,
Meetings, Pamphlets,
Hazards of open defecation,
Posters, Street plays.
Dignity of Women, Child Mortality
2
Community
groups
Importance of Sanitation and
Linkages to Public Health, Conflict
Resolution, Ownership of
Facilities, Financing Options
3
Local
Problems of Locality, Coping
Governmen Costs, Environmental Costs,
t
Project Feasibility
Group Discussions,
IEC Material,
Workshops on Cost –
Benefit Analysis
Documentation of
present situation and
Coping Costs of
Community,
Discussions on
Project Report
S
no.
Stakeholder
Needs
Capacity Building
Tools
4
Facilitators
Technology Options, Cost
Benefit Analysis, Capacities for
Implementation of Pilots and
Scaling up
Workshops on
Technology
options, ToT
programs, Capacity
Building Programs,
IEC Material for
dissemination
5
Political
Representativ
es
Need for Better standards of
living and Health in their
localities, Needs of People,
Government Schemes and
Programmes on the Subject
Meetings with
Community,
Material on
Funding options,
User satisfaction
Survey Analysis
6
Financing
Agencies
Details on Cost Recovery,
Financial Breakdown of Project
and Viability Analysis
Detailed Project
Report and O&M
model
Operation, Maintenance & Reuse
►A
Local Toilet Committee will be constituted for the
area after a meeting with the representatives of the
slum comprising Local SHGs (Self Help Groups) and
RWA ( Residents welfare association).
► The Local Toilet Committee would be provided training
on operation and maintenance.
► The above authorities would be made responsible for
assigning a caretaker/s. He/She/They would be made
responsible for cleaning, maintenance of the toilet and
provision of water from the local bore well.
► Responsibility would be given to the caretaker for
informing the SHGs and RWAs if any problem arises.
► The biogas produced can be provided to the school
behind, for cooking or lighting purpose.
Implementation Schedule
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
Note: Any and All Mistakes will be reviewed
very soon and corrected – You showed a lot of
patience listening to this amateur attempt,
Thank you once again.