Hyderabad India by liwenting


									EWB – Eco-San Without Borders

  Provision of Community Toilet in Highly
   Congested Urban Slum in Hyderabad

                             1) Laikram Kaushal
                             2) Mahamaya Pratap Singh
                             3) Md.Moinuddin
                             4) M.A.Kaleem
                             5) M.A.Waheed
                             6) Umesh Pakalapati
- 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
► 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)
► PoorSolid waste management results in an
 unhygienic situation leading to a public health

► Poorgroundwater quality results in a general
 degradation of public health.

        outbreaks are common –
► Disease
 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
► No grants for maintenance and no system of
  user fees.
► Results in very poorly maintained toilets.
► The public toilets are connected to Septic
► There is no running water facility in the
  community toilets.
Public Toilet     Septic Tank

Women’s Toilet   Gents Urinal
►    Most of the times one finds completely
     choked toilet seats.
     Reasons are –
1)   No Dedicated service providers
2)   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
3)   No lighting facilities lead to poor usage by
4)   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
►    The problem of open defecation is very rampant and
     has the proportions of a menace. Main reasons are:
1)   Average home size is 25-35 sq.yds. – less space
     available for toilets.
2)   Family size is large leading to excess load on the
     existing toilets.
3)   Low and intermittent water availability.
4)   Fear of early filling of septic tank leading to kids
     being sent out for defecation
5)   Lack of safely designed toilets for children.
6)   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
► 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
► 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
► Facilitators – For Awareness Campaigns, Education
  and Training Programs and as a catalyst for change,
  Research on Local applicability and design
► 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
             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
► 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

                                      Septic tank beside toilet
4 seats – 2 for men and 2 for women
             Rough sketch
                    School Building

14                                                  e
F                                                   s
E    Septic tank                       Toilet       p
E                                                   c
T                                                   e
                         60 feet

              Road – width – 10 feet

      Possible Sanitation Concepts
►    Specific Constraints are lack of space - ≤ 70
     sq.m. and congested access with very little
     scope for reuse of treated water.
1.   A conventional toilet with flush and forget
2.   UDD toilets (very difficult to ensure smooth
3.   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.
► 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
► 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
   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
              1    4   7   10   13      16   19   22
                 Flow Chart


                      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
► 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 =
► 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(12000-
  4080)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% =
   Expected Gas – 920 users X 40 lppd = 36,800
   @ 40% gas production biogas expected is
   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
► 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                                 Capacity Building
no.                                                   Tools

1   Users       Public Health Importance ,        Meetings, Pamphlets,
                Hazards of open defecation,       Posters, Street plays.
                Dignity of Women, Child Mortality

2   Community   Importance of Sanitation and          Group Discussions,
    groups      Linkages to Public Health, Conflict   IEC Material,
                Resolution, Ownership of              Workshops on Cost –
                Facilities, Financing Options         Benefit Analysis

3   Local     Problems of Locality, Coping            Documentation of
    Governmen Costs, Environmental Costs,             present situation and
    t         Project Feasibility                     Coping Costs of
                                                      Discussions on
                                                      Project Report
S     Stakeholder     Needs                              Capacity Building
no.                                                      Tools
 4    Facilitators    Technology Options, Cost           Workshops on
                      Benefit Analysis, Capacities for   Technology
                      Implementation of Pilots and       options, ToT
                      Scaling up                         programs, Capacity
                                                         Building Programs,
                                                         IEC Material for
 5    Political       Need for Better standards of       Meetings with
      Representativ   living and Health in their         Community,
      es              localities, Needs of People,       Material on
                      Government Schemes and             Funding options,
                      Programmes on the Subject          User satisfaction
                                                         Survey Analysis

 6    Financing       Details on Cost Recovery,          Detailed Project
      Agencies        Financial Breakdown of Project     Report and O&M
                      and Viability Analysis             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

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.

To top