EWB Eco-San Without Borders Provision of Community

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

Back. Ground Rasoolpura - Population – 45, 000 (approx) - Individual Water Connections – 25 -30 % - Sanitation Coverage at individual household level – 60% - Water Supply – 2 hrs 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 – 3 hrs 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 – 60 feet* 14 feet ► Outlet – Closed pipe – 9 inches dia also linked to household outlets along the way ► Final outlet – open nala (stream) ► Reuse options for H 20 – 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. 1 st and 3 rd 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 + CO 2) 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 person 1. 5 – 1380 uses § Water Used per Use – 5 ltrs § Hand Wash – 1 ltr/use § Total Water Generated – 8280 ltrs 8. 3 kld § Number of seats required – 23 @ 1 seat/40 persons § Space required for Individual Seat – 4 X 4 feet § Space available – 47 X 14 feet § Seats Possible including superstructure 20 seats § 10 – female, 08 – male, 1 - each for children

Peak Flow Estimates liters Hours

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 person (assumed) – 54 g/day Total BOD load = 49. 68 kg Total Volume of Water = 8280 ltrs 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 6000 x 0. 35 = 2100 mg/l ► COD reduction with 1 day retention time is 12000 x 0. 34 = 4080 mg/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 = 64 m 3 ► VD (Detention Volume) @ 1 day retention time = 8280 x 1/1000 = 8. 28 m 3 ► 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. 66 m 3

► The required gas storage volume (VG) is determined by theoretical specific methane production and the amount of COD removed. Theoretical specific methane (CH 4) yield at standard temperature and pressure conditions (STP: 0°C and atmospheric pressure) is ca. 0. 25 kg CH 4 or about 0. 35 liters CH 4 per gram COD removed. Allowing for a safety margin of 25% and assuming the CH 4 content of biogas to be 60% (common values are 50% to 70%), the gasholder storage volume (VG) is thus: ► VG = 1. 25{. 35 x(120004080)x 8280}/1000000 x 0. 6 = 136. 62 m 3 ► Therefore total storage capacity = 64+8. 28+1. 66+136. 6 = 210. 54 m 3

► 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 m 3. Hence halfmeter RBS is 5. 94 m

Bio Gas Settler ► Calculation of Size § 1. 5 days retention time – Volume 10. 35 kl +10% = 11. 38 kl § Expected Gas – 920 users X 40 lppd = 36, 800 § @ 40% gas production biogas expected is 14, 720 lpd § 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 m 3/hr) ► Assumptions: Cross section of individual reactor 1. 5 m 2. ► Achieved flow velocity : 1. 84/1. 5=1. 23 m/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 m 2 and that by settling chamber is 2. 5 m 2. Total area is (1. 5*5+ 2. 5) =10 m 2 ► The area of one up flow filter (UF) is 1. 5 m 2. The total area for UF is (4*1. 5) = 6 m 2 ► Total area is 16 m 2 ► Height of ABR or UF is 2 m. ► Total volume is 2*16=32 m 3 ► 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, 000 Total Costs Known so far Toilet – 8, 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, 000 Miscellaneous – 1, 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 Importance of Sanitation and groups Linkages to Public Health, Conflict Resolution, Ownership of Facilities, Financing Options Group Discussions, IEC Material, Workshops on Cost – Benefit Analysis 3 Local Governmen t Documentation of present situation and Coping Costs of Community, Discussions on Project Report Problems of Locality, Coping Costs, Environmental Costs, Project Feasibility

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, To. T 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.