Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
R
E
P
O
R
T
Tamil Nadu StateBaseline STUDY:Technical Assessment of Sanitation ChainJanuary 2017
Tamil Nadu State Baseline STUDY:
Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain
January 2017
In Association With:
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
2. BMGF funding acknowledgement: This Research / Work was supported by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
3. Logo use: ''The IIHS logo, name and all graphics on the IIHS website are trademarks of IIHS. Use, reproduction,
copying or redistribution of trademarks, without the written permission of IIHS is prohibited. All other trademarks
marks or service marks appearing on this report are the marks of their respective owners.''
For Citation: TNUSSP, 2017. Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain.
This document is produced as part of Tamil Nadu Urban Sanitation Support Programme (TNUSSP). TNUSSP
supports the Government of Tamil Nadu (GoTN) and cities in making improvements along the entire urban
sanitation chain. The TNUSSP is being implemented by a consortium of organisations led by the Indian Institute for
Human Settlements (IIHS), in association with CDD Society, Gramalaya, and Keystone Foundation.
www.tnussp.co.in | www.iihs.co.in
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study:Technical Assessment of SanitationChainJanuary 2017
Document Team: Praveen Nagaraja, Tanay Timblo, Rajiv Raman, K.V.Santhosh Ragavan, Srinithi Sudhakar
Moopanar, Reeba Devaraj, Navamani Ramasamy, Sancy Sebastian
Editing: Word Lab, IIHS, Bengaluru
Administrative Support: Shaheena Manoj, Krishnapriyaa P., Govardhan Seshachalam
Team Leader: Kavita Wankhade
Project Director: Somnath Sen
Design and Layout: Divya Dhayalan
1. CC license terms: This research and data has been published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. Under the aforementioned license, you are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions — you may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others
from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is
permitted by an applicable exception or limitation. No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the
permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights
may limit how you use the material.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
CONTENTS
i
Abbreviations v
Executive Summary E1
E1. Key Findings E3
01. Introduction and Methodology 01
1.1. Objectives of The Study 03
1.2. Stakeholders 03
1.3. Data Collection 04
1.4. Sample Size 05
1.5. Sampling Plan 08
1.6. Limitations of The Study 09
02. Overview of Geo Climatic Zones 11
2.1. Profile of The Urban Local Bodies 13
2.2. Water Supply 14
2.2.1. Source of water 14
2.2.2. Frequency of water supply 15
2.2.3. Water supply charge 16
2.2.4. Piped water supply 16
03. User Interface and Containment 17
3.1. State Level- Aggregate across zones 19
3.2. User Interface and Containment 20
3.2.1. Toilet construction 20
3.2.2. Physical Infrastructure 20
3.3. Containment Units 22
3.3.1. State Level- Aggregate across all zones 22
3.3.2. Single Pit 26
04. Emptying and Transportation 31
4.1. Emptying 33
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
CONTENTS (contd...)
ii
4.1.1. State level aggregate across all zones 33
4.2. Collection and transportation aggregate state level 36
4.3. Wastewater Management 37
05. Treatment and Reuse 39
5.1. Treatment 41
5.1.1. Vedaranyam 41
5.1.2. Thanjavur 41
5.1.3. Ooty 42
5.1.4. Kancheepuram 42
5.2. Reuse 43
5.2.1. State level aggregate across all zones 44
06. Conclusion 49
6.1. User Interface 51
6.2. Containment 52
6.3. Desludging 55
6.4. Collection and Transportation 56
Annexures 59
Annexure 1: Brief on Agro climatic zones 61
Annexure 2: Toilet number and location 65
Annexure 3: Containment 67
Annexure 4: Emptying and Transportation 85
Annexure 5: Reuse 101
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
iii
Tables
Table 1.1: Stakeholders associated with infrastructure creation 04
Table 1.2: Data Collection Tools 05
Table 1.3: Agro climatic zones 06
Table 1.4: ULBs Selected for the Study 07
Table 1.5: Sample size of various study categories within a ULB 08
Table 1.6: Sampling plan for various study categories within a ULB 08
Table 2.1: Demographics of Seven Zones Tamil Nadu 13
Table 2.2: Demographics of 21 Pilot Towns in Tamil Nadu 13
Table 2.3: Primary sources of Potable Water 14
Table 3.1: Number of Toilets in The House 19
Table 3.2: Location of the Toilet 19
Table 3.3: Physical infrastructure details-1 21
Table 3.4: Physical infrastructure details-2 21
Table 3.5: Households Connected to Containment System 22
Table 3.6: Number of Partition Walls in Septic Tank 23
Table 3.7: Septic Tank Lined at the Bottom 23
Table 3.8: Vent Pipe in Septic Tank 24
Table 3.9: Septic Tank with Manhole 24
Table 3.10: No. of Manholes in Septic Tank 24
Table 3.11: Septic tank Connected to a Soak Pit 25
Table 3.12: Length of Septic Tank (Metres) 25
Table 3.13: Width of Septic Tank (Metres) 25
Table 3.14: Depth of Septic Tank (Metres) 26
Table 3.15: Septic Tank Size (Metre cube) 26
Table 3.16: Nearest road width for households 26
Table 3.17: No. of rings in single pits 27
Table 3.18: Does the single pit have vent 27
Table 3.19: containment filling up rate 28
Table 3.20: Time Taken for Lined Containment Systems To Fill Up 28
Table 4.1: Septic Tank/Pit last desludged 33
Table 4.2: Frequency of desludging 33
Table 4.3: Desludging Operators 34
Table 4.4: Desludging costs 34
Table 4.5: Desludging costs of operators 35
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
ivTamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017
Tables (contd...)
Table 4.6: Tank Capacity (litres) 36
Table 4.7: Distance to Households for Desludging 36
Table 4.8: Distance to Households for Desludging 37
Table 4.9: Reasons for not discharging in the treatment plant 37
Table 4.10: Infrastructure and Arrangement for Wastewater Management at Household Level 38
Table 5.1:Wastewater reuse across zones 43
Table 5.2: Crops irrigated with freshwater 44
Table 5.3: Crops irrigated with wastewater 46
Table 5.4: Crops grown using faecal sludge 46
Table 6.1: User Interface 51
Table 6.2: Containment 52
Table 6.3: Desludging 55
Table 6.4: Collection and Transportation 57
Figures
Figure 1.1: Agro-climatic Map of Tamil Nadu 06
Figure 2.1: Frequency of Water Supply in Seven Agro Climatic Zones for Potable uses 15
Figure 2.2: Frequency of Water Supply in Seven Agro Climatic Zones for Potable uses 15
Figure 2.3: Charges for Water Supply 16
Figure 3.1: Period of Toilet Construction 20
Figure 3.2: User interface in one of the household in hilly zone 22
Figure 5.1: A) Aerobic Treatment Plant Unit at Thanjavur, b) Treated Effluent Foaming at the Outlet Point 41
Figure 5.2: Aeration Treatment Module at Ooty 42
Figure 5.3: Waste Stabilization Pond at Kancheepuram 43
Figure 5.4: Duration of Freshwater Supply (in number of answers) 45
Figure 5.5: Farmers being Interviewed at Ooty and Erode 47
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Abbreviations
AC Asbestos Cement
BNR Biological Nutrient Reduction
CDD Consortium for DEWATS Dissemination
CDZ Cauvery Delta Zone
CT Census Town
GoTN Government of Tamil Nadu
HH Household
HRZ High Rainfall Zone
HSC Household Service Connection
HZ Hilly Zone
NEZ North Eastern Zone
NNP Narasimhanaicken-palayam
NWZ North Western Zone
O & M Operations and Maintenance
PNP Periyanaicken-palayam
PPE Personal Protective Equipment
PSI Pound-force per Square Inch
RCC Reinforced concrete
Sq.m Square meter
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
SZ Southern Zone
TCC Tiruchirappalli City Corporation
TNPCB Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
TNUSSP Tamil Nadu Urban Sanitation Support Programme
TP Town Panchayat
UGD Underground Drainage System
UGSS Underground Sewerage Scheme
ULB Urban Local Body
WZ Western Zone
vTamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
EE1. Key Findings E3
Executive
Summary
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 E3
Executive Summary
In Urban Tamil Nadu, on-site sanitation systems take precedence over the conventional underground
drainage systems. According to Census of India, 2011a, about 27 percent of the household toilets were
connected to sewer system and 38 percent to septic tanks. Households’ dependence on on-site
sanitation systems implies that the fecal sludge is managed and disposed of in an efficient manner.
However, improper construction of the containment system, poor maintenance and irregular disposal
of fecal sludge often pose a challenge to effective fecal sludge management.
To this end, the Operative Guidelines for Septage Management issued by the Government of Tamil
Nadu (GoTN) in September, 2014 aimed to standardise the design and construction of septic tanks,
instituting standard operating procedures for collection and transportation of septage, and implementing
possible co-treatment options at the existing under-utilized sewage treatment plants, apart from creating
new infrastructure and systems for comprehensive septage management.
The Tamil Nadu Urban Sanitation Support Programme (TNUSSP) carried out in 36 Urban Local Bodies
(ULBs) across seven different agro climatic zones to create an understanding of the sanitation situation
across the various region in the State of Tamil Nadu. The study used both quantitative and qualitative
data collection methods to elicit information from various stakeholders including household members,
masons, public toilet and community toilet operators, desludging operators, treatment facility operators
and farmers. In each of the zones, 90 household interviews were carried out, totally to 630 overall.
E1. Key Findings
All the household interviewed have individual household toilets. The toilets in all the seven zones have
mostly been constructed around the same time as the construction of the houses. It was also observed
that post 2000 the number of households constructing toilet had increased.
Three-fourth of the households interviewed reported that the toilet was connected to a septic tank. This
is followed by 179 households with single pits. One similarity observed in all the zones is that all the
septic tanks have their overflow discharge into storm water drains. The presence of partition wall is a
major differentiator between a holding tank and septic tank. Of the 630 sampled households only in 170
HHs (27 per cent) the presence of partition walls was observed while a higher number of 220 HHs (35
per cent) did not have partition walls in the containment units.
In spite of 90 percent of the containment systems having been constructed for above 10-year period
only 36 per cent of the households have stated that the containment unit ever filled up completely and
that it was de-sludged. The reasons for desludging were mainly attributed to backflow (102 HHs) and
overflow of containment (93 HHs). According to majority of the households, the containment systems
have never filled up till date.
In terms of desludging, very few households have reported desludging while a majority 28 per cent
claimed to have never de-sludged. Of this the hilly zone has the maximum numbers of households who
have never de-sludged while the high rainfall zone seems to be having a more regular desludging. The
high rainfall zone has also high number of households reported to be desludging in the past one year.
The responses on frequency of desludging is also mostly skewed towards more than a five-year period
or never done.
A total of 47 operators were covered to understand the desludging practices across the seven zones
and most reported the tank capacity between 4,500-70,00 litres and 2,000-4,500 litres each. The
Cauvery delta zone and the north eastern zone has the maximum number of operators traversing
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 E4
between 6-20 kms. The high rainfall zone, north western zone and western zone has maximum number
of people plying between 20-50 kms. Operators in the Hilly zone and western zone have claimed to
travel distances above 50 kms and this is very negligible at 6 per cent.
Nine out of 47 operators stated to also desludge chemical waste from industries, such as leather,
needle, clothes, oil, rubber, steel, communication and soft drink companies.
The data further revealed that most operators only between 0-20 kms distance to the discharge point.
Contrary to other zones, in the north eastern zone maximum number of operators have stated
procedures as the chief reason for not discharging in the treatment plant while distance and time has
not been a pressing factor for not emptying at the treatment plants in this zone.
Most of the towns covered had no treatment plants for the city/town level, though there were a few
private treatment units, these were operated in closed boundaries and the entry to these were not easy
and hence the study does not have data on such treatment units. In few of the cities such as
Kancheepuram, Thanjavur, Vedaranyam, and Ooty there were treatment plants, which could be
assessed, however no dedicated operator was available during the study to provide details on these
assets.
The reuse part of the study was carried out by interviewing farmers from various agro climatic zones of
Tamil Nadu. The use of wastewater for irrigation purpose was practiced in 5 zones except in hilly and
western zone. The reasons stated for use of wastewater was presence of high nutrient value and lack
of freshwater availability. None of the farmers stated the occurrence of any water borne disease except
one farmer in north eastern zone claimed one of his family members suffered from cholera.
1Introduction &
Methodology1.1. Objectives of The Study 03
1.2. Stakeholders 03
1.3. Data Collection 04
1.4. Sample Size 05
1.5. Sampling Plan 08
1.6. Limitations of The Study 09
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 03
1. Introduction and Methodology
The Government of Tamil Nadu (GoTN) has been a pioneer in recognising the importance of securing
the full sanitation chain as vital for improving public health outcomes for all citizens. To help GoTN
achieve its sanitation goals (Muzhu sughadhara Tamizhagam) through the Tamil Nadu Urban
Sanitation Support Programme (TNUSSP), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has set up a
Technical Support Unit within the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. TNUSSP
aims at making improvements along sanitation chain in the state of Tamil Nadu and demonstrating
innovations in two model urban locations: Tiruchirappalli City Corporation (TCC), and Periyanaicken-
palayam (PNP) and Narasimhanaicken-palayam (NNP) Town Panchayats, Coimbatore District.
In both locations, the programme is implementing projects and interventions along the full cycle of
sanitation in consultation with key stakeholders and working closely with the TCC and PNP-NNP Town
Panchayats.
The baseline study thereby intents to satisfy the objective of mapping current sanitation situation across
the various agro climatic zones in the state of Tamil Nadu. The study aimed at framing state specific
overview of sanitation situation across the full cycle chain. Accordingly, the sanitation situation was
assessed for components across the faecal sludge chain. The study was conducted post a pilot Study
carried out by CDD Society at Periyanaicken-palayam, Narasimhanaicken-palayam and Tiruchirappalli.
Objectives of The Study
The baseline study intends to create an understanding of the sanitation situation across the various
region in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The broad objectives of the study are as follows:
i. To understand the current status of sanitation infrastructure across the chain in different regions
of Tamil Nadu, Including the current construction practices, operational and maintenance
practices for construction of toilets, including containment, desludging and transportation of
faecal sludge, treatment and re-use, regionally.
ii. To understand and analyse the variations in sanitation arrangements and practices across
regions.
iii. To map the current enabling conditions for infrastructure development such as supply chain,
skill-sets/capacities and others, which play a role in moulding the plan and operations of the
infrastructure and related services.
iv. The outcome of the study is to have an extensive understanding of the systems and practices
followed across the state of Tamil Nadu.
Stakeholders The study includes stakeholders who contribute in the setting up of infrastructure along the sanitation
chain were studied to understand and analyse the variations in sanitation arrangements and practices
across regions. Table 2.1 represents the targeted stakeholder groups identified as part of this study and
their participation.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 04
Table 1.1: Stakeholders associated with infrastructure creation
Component Stakeholder Participation
User interface and
containment
structures-
Household members Primary custodian of the system
User of the infrastructure
Operates and maintains the system
Mason Construct (and sometimes even design)
systems such as toilets and containment units
Public toilet Operators Provision and O&M of common
infrastructure
Community toilet operators Provision and O&M of shared
infrastructure
Desludging and
transportation
Household members Customers
Cesspool operator study
(Owners, operator and
cleaner)
Service provider and custodian of desludging and transporting infrastructure.
Treatment Facility manager/Operator,
Treatment providers O&M of treatment system
Reuse Farmers Recipient of faecal sludge for reuse at
farm lands
Source: TNUSSP, 2016
Data Collection The study involves qualitative assessment of the sanitation chain. Table 1.2 represents the type of data
collection instrument and broad objectives of enquiry for each stakeholder group. The study consists of
semi (or/and) structured interviews of stakeholders as well as direct observations by study team
members.
Both structured and semi-structured questionnaires were used to elicit information. Data collection
checklist was used by the surveyor to note down their observation. Observations were carried out to
assess the procedures related to sanitation services (such as desludging, transportation of faecal
sludge etc.) and compare them with standard operating procedures to determine the current levels of
service delivery and hazard mapping. Independent observation of the infrastructure was carried out to
understand the condition of these systems and the threats they pose to environment and health.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 05
Table 1.2: Data Collection Tools
Data Points Objective Data Collection Method
Household Toilet
Document the current infrastructure related to user interface and containment
Assess current design and procedures and operational practices that lead to negative impacts of improper sanitation
Structured interview with the household member Direct observations of the infrastructure
Public toilet
Community toilet Document the condition of existing
infrastructure and O&M practises
Structured interviews with Public toilet operator / Community toilet representative Direct observations
Containment Determine the skill and knowledge
level in building toilets and containment units
Structured interviews with masons and Observations
Emptying Determine the existing infrastructure
present for desludging and transportation of faecal sludge.
Structured interviews with Cesspool Operator Direct observations of the operation (Desludging, transportation and disposal)
Treatment Determine the current conditions of
decentralised wastewater treatment units and their O&M
Structured interview with Facility manager Direct observations of the infrastructure
Reuse Map the current practice of sludge
disposal and reuse and their implication on health and ecosystem
Semi structured interviews with farmers
Source: TNUSSP, 2016
Sample Size The State is broadly classified under seven different agro climatic zones as per the classification made
by the Government of Tamil Nadu. For the purpose of this study, three urban local bodies were sampled
from each of these agro climatic zones. The below Figure 1.1 and Table 1.3 represents the various agro
climatic zones and the regions they cover.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 06
Figure 1.1: Agro-climatic Map of Tamil Nadu
Source: TNUSSP, 2016
Table 1.3: Agro climatic zones1
Agro climatic zone Regions (districts) covered in the zone
North eastern zone (NEZ) Kancheepuram, Tiruvallur, Cuddalore, Vellore, Villupuram and
Tirunvannamalai
North western zone (NWZ) Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri, Salem and Namakkal (Part)
Western zone (NZ) Erode, Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Theni, Karur (part), Namakkal
(part), Dindigul, Perambalur and Ariyalur (part)
Cauvery delta zone (CDZ) Thanjavur, Nagapattinam, Tiruvarur, Trichy and parts of Karur,
Ariyalur, Pudukkottai and Cuddalore
1 For Demography – Namakkal under North western zone, Cuddalore under North eastern zone, Karur under western zone, Ariyalur under Cauvery delta zone
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 07
Table 1.3: Agro climatic zones1
Agro climatic zone Regions (districts) covered in the zone
Southern zone (SZ) Madurai, Sivagangai, Ramanathapuram, Virudhunagar,
Tirunelveli and Thoothukudi
High rainfall zone (HRZ) Kanyakumari
Hilly zone (HZ) The Nilgiris and Kodaikanal (Dindigul)
Source: TNUSSP, 2016
From the above regions, three urban local bodies were sampled based on the following rationale.
i. Representation of different sizes and population of ULBs.
ii. Purposive sampling to represent varied conditions of geography and climatic conditions.
Table 1.4 provides the details of the ULB selected and Table 1.5 shows the number of respondents
that were sampled.
Table 1.4: ULBs Selected for the Study
Agro climatic zone Corporation Municipality Town panchayat (TP)/
Census town (CT)
North eastern zone (NEZ) Vellore Kancheepuram Sriperumbudur (TP)
North western zone (NWZ) Salem Edappadi Sankagiri (TP)
Western zone (NZ) Erode Bhavani Jambai (TP)
Cauvery delta zone (CDZ) Thanjavur Vedaranyam Tharangampadi (TP)
Southern zone (SZ) Thoothukudi Kovilpatti Ettayapuram (TP)
High rainfall zone (HRZ) Nagercoil Villukuri (TP) and
Agateeswaram (CT)
Hilly zone (HZ) Uthagamandalam Kothagiri (TP) and
Naduvattam (CT)
Source: TNUSSP, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 08
Table 1.5: Sample size of various study categories within a ULB
Study Category OR Response group Number of Samples/ Observation per ULB
Household study 30 households
Household sanitation infrastructure observation-Toilet
and containment
30 households, same sample set as
above study
Under construction containment units –
Observation 3 structures
Masons – toilet builders 3 masons
Public toilets/ community toilets study 2 toilet complexes
Public toilets/ community toilets - observation 2 toilet complex, sample set same as
above
Cesspool operator – study 2 Interviews
Cesspool operation observation 2 observations
Facility manager – wastewater treatment plant 1 interviews
Wastewater treatment plant observation 1 observations
Farm owners 2 interviews
Faecal sludge sampling 2 sample
Source: TNUSSP, 2016
Sampling Plan The following Table 1.6 details out the sampling procedure involved in selecting the respondents of
the study.
Table 1.6: Sampling plan for various study categories within a ULB
Study category or
Response Group Sampling Method/ technique
Household Purposive
sampling
Households were selected based on the judgement of the
enumerator.2
2 The sample space was stratified based on the Household wall structure; this is a proxy indicator of the sanitation infrastructure. The stratified samples were selected during a recce undertaken before the start of study. The intention was to have a
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 09
Table 1.6: Sampling plan for various study categories within a ULB
Study category or
Response Group Sampling Method/ technique
Under construction
structures Purposive
Samples were selected during the reconnaissance visit to
these towns. Only those which have an access to the under
construction containment units and which are not in
operation were considered. This also includes interviews
with masons/workers available on site.
Masons Snowballing
A list of masons was populated during interaction with local
community. Subsequent masons were identified or sampled
from the network of masons in this list.
Cesspool operators Snowballing
A list of cesspool operators was identified during interaction
with the local community, subsequent operators were
identified for interview from the network or linkages from the
list.
Cesspool
observation Purposive Observations were made for different desludging operators
across subsequent days of study
Facility
manager Purposive
sampling
Treatment units providing access for the study were
sampled. The same sample set was used for direct
observation
Farm owners Purposive
sampling
Farmers identified during disposal of faecal sludge during
the cesspool operation observation were sampled
Faecal sludge
sampling
Purposive
sampling
Samples were collected at the end of cesspool observation
data collection module. The methodology used is further
detailed out under the document “Faecal sludge Sampling
and Analysis Protocol” by CDD Society under the TNUSSP
Source: TNUSSP, 2016
Limitations of The Study The above baseline study was conducted with the objective to assess the sanitation situation across
the state of Tamil Nadu, though sufficient steps were taken to reduce the errors and biases, there
were a few inherent constraints of the study which are mentioned below.
i. The study is qualitative in nature and hence cannot provide a representative assessment of
the sanitation chain existing in the pilot towns.
ii. The sample size of the study is not statistically significant to draw quantitative results.
iii. The desired number of respondents as mentioned in Table 5 could not be achieved due to
inherent nature of the respondents and their availability, at a few urban local bodies.
The research methodology is designed to represent the situation of the state, but nevertheless, to get
a detailed understanding of any specific region, a further study with statistically appropriate number of
samples must be carried out.
representative sample of the entire town, while also being able to access the data such as septic tank dimensions’ toilet conditions etc. Hence, during the study, the enumerator visited the selected sample sets and asked a set of pre-requisite questions to the household, which when answered in affirmative enlisted the household as a sample under the study, otherwise households in the immediate vicinity were selected and the same protocol was followed.
2Overview of
Geo Climatic
Zones2.1. Profile of The Urban Local Bodies 13
2.2. Water Supply 14
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 13
2. Overview of Geo Climatic Zones
This section presents the analysis of data collected or observed from primary and secondary research
carried out under this study. The analysis was done zone wise to understand the sanitation specific
situation in each zone. The water table, water quality and soil type information in each zone was
collected details in Annexure 1. Each zone had its own specific regional characteristics like Cauvery
zone mainly comprised of deltaic area due to Cauvery river flowing through the area. North eastern
zone had six geographical tracts; Coastal plains, hilly and mountainous area undulated with hillocks,
eastern ghats, central plateau, backwater, western ghats adjoining the plateau. Western zone and north
western zone had mostly undulating topography. The high altitude zone was mostly hilly comprising of
Nilgiris, the Yelgiri, the Anamalai and the Palani hills. The southern zone had flat plains and intermittent
hills and the high rainfall zone had no specific geographic characteristics.
Profile of The Urban Local Bodies The state of Tamil Nadu has an urban population 34 per cent.
Table 2.1: Demographics of Seven Zones Tamil Nadu
Zone Total
Population Urban
Population % of Urban Population
Urban Area (sq.km)
Density (People/sq.Km)
North Eastern zone 21,017,195 9,392,786 44.7 30,487 308
North western Zone 8,723,842 3,288,055 37.7 18,326 179
Western Zone 14,677,737 8,761,734 59.7 29,232 300
Cauvery Delta Zone 10,405,302 3,235,115 31.1 19,127 169
Southern Zone 13,158,209 6,705,316 51.0 27,494 244
High Rainfall zone 1,899,392 1,568,820 82.6 1,732 906
Hilly Zone 735,394 435,655 59.2 2,621 166
Source: Census, 2011
Table 2.1 summarises the demographic details of the 21 pilot towns covered under this study.
Table 2.2: Demographics of 21 Pilot Towns in Tamil Nadu
Zone/ Name of the ULB Total
Population
Number of % of
households toilets
% of toilets
connected to OSS
Cauvery Delta Zone
Thanjavur (Corporation) 2,22,943 56,836 84.1% 70.6%
Vedaranyam (Municipality) 47,064 12,108 41.7% 99.5%
Tharangampadi (Town panchayat) 23,191 5,482 72.8% 99.9%
North Eastern zone
Vellore (Corporation) 1,85,803 42,598 83.8% 46.1%
Kanchepuram (Municipality) 1,64,384 41,807 88.6% 87.7%
Sriperambadur (Town Panchayat) 24,864 6,318 71.6% 99.9%
North western Zone
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 14
Table 2.2: Demographics of 21 Pilot Towns in Tamil Nadu
Zone/ Name of the ULB Total
Population
Number of % of
households toilets
% of toilets
connected to OSS
Salem (Corporation) 8,29,267 2,15,747 75.1% 100%
Edappadi (Municipality) 54,823 14,560 25.8% 99.6%
Sankagiri (Town panchayat) 29,467 8,122 52% 100%
Western Zone
Erode (Corporation) 1,57,101 43,184 87.5% 100%
Bhavani (Municipality) 39,225 11,147 67.4% 99.7%
Jambai (Town Panchayat) 16,522 4,789 24.3% 100%
Southern Zone
Thoothukudi (Corporation) 2,37,830 60,714 92.5% 99.8%
Kovilpatti (municipality) 95,057 25,099 71.6% 100%
Ettayapuram (Town panchayat) 12,772 3,646 40% 99.8 %
High Rainfall zone
Nagercoil (municipality) 2,24,849 59,997 93.7% 100 %
Villukuri (Town panchayat) 15,304 4,037 82% 99.9 %
Agasteeswaram (Census town) 9,717 2,620 85.2% 99.9 %
Hillly Zone
Uthagamandalam (Municipality) 88,430 23,235 65.5% 63.8%
Kothagiri (Town panchayat) 28,207 7,860 57.7% 99.8%
Naduvattam (Census town) 8,505 2,340 15.3% 99.3%
Source: Census, 2011
Water Supply
2.2.1. Source of water
Most of the households in all the seven zones depend upon municipal piped water supply as a source
for potable water. Few households in the zones depend upon household tube wells. In NEZ and CDZ
few households depend upon bore well. Households also have access to ground water through tube,
bore and open wells when the ground water table is high. The other sources of potable water include
can water, purifiers, Ro water, aqua guard and pumps. Table 2.2 and 2.3 summarizes the sources of
potable and non – potable source of water.
Table 2.3: Primary sources of Potable Water
Sources WZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ CDZ
MC piped supply 57 61 69 45 55 76 50
HH tube well 19 22 13 12 18 3 16
Bore well 3 0 1 13 0 9 12
Community tube well 3 2 6 8 0 3 6
Pond/River/ Canal 10 0 0 0 9 0 0
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 15
Table 2.3: Primary sources of Potable Water
Sources WZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ CDZ
Private tankers 0 0 0 1 0 2 13
Others 2 7 2 22 9 5 0
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
2.2.2. Frequency of water supply
When it comes to frequency of water supply, most of the households in CDZ, WZ, HRZ and NEZ gets
everyday water supply, the below Figure 2 and 3 shows the frequency distribution of water supply.
Water for non-potable use came primarily from tube wells and bore wells. In such cases frequency of
water supply is as per one’s need.
Figure 2.1: Frequency of Water Supply in Seven Agro Climatic Zones for Potable uses
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Figure 2.2: Frequency of Water Supply in Seven Agro Climatic Zones for Potable uses
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Every day Once in 2 days Once in 3 days Once per week
West zone High rainfall zone Hilly zone North eastern zone North western zone Southern Zone Cauvery delta zone
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Every day Once in 2 days Once in 3 days Once per week
West zone High rainfall zone Hilly zone North eastern zone
North western zone Southern Zone Cauvery delta zone
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 16
2.2.3. Water supply charge
The water supply charges across the zones was collected and analysed. It was found that only 12 out
of 270 households in three zones had metered arrangement for water supply. The distribution being 6
out of 90 households in HRZ, 4 out of 90 households in NWZ and 2 out of 90 households in SZ, but
nevertheless all the households paid a fixed annual fee to the municipality. The fee ranged from Rs.60
– Rs.150 per household and no basis for this variation could be observed in the study. Figure 3.3
represents the tariff as a bar chart.
Figure 2.3: Charges for Water Supply
Source: TNUSSP primary Study, 2016
2.2.4. Piped water supply
Most households covered had access to municipal piped water supply, they use this water primarily for
potable purpose, while a few households had access to bore wells within their premises and the water
from this was mostly used for non-potable purposes such as washing, flushing, cleaning and others. 10
out of 30 households had a metered arrangement for water supply, but nevertheless all the households
paid a fixed annual fee to the municipality.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Metered Based on pipe dia Flat tariff (fixed billing) NA
West zone High rainfall zone Hilly zone North eastern zone
North western zone Southern Zone Cauvery delta zone
3User Interface
& Containment3.1. State Level- Aggregate across zones 19
3.2. User Interface and Containment 20
3.3. Containment Units 22
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 19
3. User Interface and Containment
State Level- Aggregate across zones In the covered 630 households across the seven zones a majority 60 per cent of the households have
at least 1 toilet in the house while around 27 per cent households have 2 toilets.
Table 3.1: Number of Toilets in The House
Zones 1 2 3 4 5 6 No
response Number of
HHs sampled
Cauvery Delta Zone 50 32 3 3 1 0 1 90
High Rainfall Zone 40 33 10 6 1 0 0 90
Hilly Zone 74 10 4 0 1 1 0 90
North Eastern Zone 48 30 5 5 1 0 1 90
North Western Zone 59 17 7 2 2 1 2 90
Southern Zone 58 21 4 7 0 0 0 90
Western Zone 49 28 5 4 4 0 0 90
Total 378 171 38 27 10 2 4 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The toilet in the covered households is mostly located at the rear of the house (41 per cent) followed
by 27 per cent households having the toilets within the house. Southern zone has the highest number
of households with toilets in the rear side. In the high rainfall zones in addition to high number of toilets
being constructed on the rear side a high number of toilets are also constructed within the house. In all
the zones it has been uniformly reported that a very less number of 7.8 per cent of toilets are
constructed outside the house.
Table 3.2: Location of the Toilet
Zones CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Front side of the house 3 8 30 24 32 10 44 151
Outside the house 15 3 3 13 7 6 2 49
Rear side of the house 47 45 33 21 35 49 29 259
Within the house 25 34 24 32 16 25 15 171
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Most households with 1 toilet are located at the rear side of the house (151 HHs) and front side of the
house (106 HHs). The second toilets are built in the rear side of the house (77 HHs) and within the
house boundary (58 HHs).
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 20
User Interface and Containment
3.2.1. Toilet construction
A majority 85 per cent of households have attributed space availability as the prime factor for locating
the toilet in the particular area while a small 13 per cent of households have reported Vaastu (religious
customs in designing a house) as the influencing factor.
The number of responses stating factors connecting people responsible for toilet construction have
been limited but in many cases it has been stated that the owner of the house has been responsible
for construction of toilets. Additionally, reasons such as government schemes and personal and women
safety have also been recorded as reasons for initiating construction of toilets.
The toilets in all the seven zones have mostly been constructed around the same time as the
construction of the houses. Overall 92 percent from three zone High Rainfall Zone (HRZ), West
Zone(WZ), and North East Zone(NEZ) had toilet constructed same time as house construction. A total
number 89 households across the zones affirmed that the toilet was not constructed during the time of
constructing the house. The toilet was constructed later and Table 3.15 presents the data on the year
in which the toilet was constructed across the different zones. It is evident that more than half of the
households had constructed the toilet from 2014 onwards. This trend is observed in the hilly zone,
southern zone and in the north western zone. The increase in take up for individual household toilets
maybe due to the various state and central level programmes that promoted construction of individual
household toilets across the state.
It was observed that post 2000 the number of households constructing toilet had increased. A majority
46 per cent of the households have constructed their toilets between 2010-2016 followed by 36 per
cent households constructing between 2000-2009. Only a small 17 per cent households have
constructed their toilets between 1950-1999.
Figure 3.1: Period of Toilet Construction
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
3.2.2. Physical Infrastructure
This component consists of infrastructure at household and community level that is used for the
purpose of excreting as well as a means to contain it on site. Superstructure of the toilets in all the
zones has walls majorly made of bricks and few with Tin/metal/AC sheets, RCC, bamboo/wood, and
stone/cement mortar. The roofing materials used were either Tin/metal/AC sheets or RCC while few
had brick, bamboo/wood, and stone/cement mortar. Toilets built in these seven cluster towns varied
17% (107)
37% (232)
46% (291) 1950-1999
2000-2009
2010-2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 21
widely in size ranging from 1.3 to 2.8 sq.m. The tap connectivity outside toilet in all the seven zones
was in avg. range of 1-3m distance from the toilet. An average of 78 percent of the households across
the zones had squatting pan with water seal and P trap was major pluming fixture for most of the
households. Across the zone an average of 76 percent of households had ventilation and lighting
provision inside the toilet. Zone wise user interface characteristics and description in Annexure 2. Table
3.3 and 3.4 given below provide an overall view of toilet physical infrastructure across zones.
Table 3.3: Physical infrastructure details-1
Zones
Wall material Roof material
Toilet
dimension
(Metre)
Flushing
system Toilet type
Pour
flush
Cistern
flush Indian Western
Brick
Tin/
metal/
AC
sheets
RCC
Stone/
cement
mortar
Bamboo RCC
slab
Tin/
metal/
AC
sheets
Bricks Bamboo/
Wood
Stone/
cement
mortar
other
materials
Cauvery
Delta Zone 81 0 2 6 1 68 19 1 0 0 3 1.4 x 1.1 x 2.5 76 14 87 3
High Rainfall
Zone 90 0 0 0 0 66 18 0 2 0 0 1.6 x 1.18 x 2.4 67 23 65 25
Hilly Zone 88 2 0 0 0 41 47 0 0 0 3 1.7 x 1.2 x 2.3 82 8 84 6
North
Eastern Zone 81 0 6 3 0 67 13 1 0 0 3 1.5 x 1.3 x 2.9 69 19 84 6
North
Western
Zone
89 0 0 1 0 56 24 0 0 0 10 2 x 1.4 x 2.4 64 26 69 20
Southern
Zone 82 0 7 0 1 63 24 0 2 1 0
Western
Zone 90 0 0 0 0 51 27 3 9 0 1.87 x 1.3 x 2.5 75 15 75 15
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Table 3.4: Physical infrastructure details-2
Zones
Squatting pan S
trap
P
trap
Tap connection Ventilation
Lighting
provision inside
toilet
With water
seal
Without
water seal
Inside
toilet
Outside
toilet Yes No Yes No
Cauvery Delta
Zone 87 0 2 88 73 4 72 18 83 7
High Rainfall
Zone 64 1 15 75 62 11 81 19 78 12
Hilly Zone 83 1 43 5 77 13 73 17
North Eastern
Zone 84 0 1 89 68 7 74 16 72 18
North Western
Zone 69 0 11 89 72 5 79 11 80 10
Southern Zone 87 0 0 90 68 3 69 21 68 18
Western Zone 75 0 12 78 68 5 83 7 83 7
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 22
Figure 3.2: User interface in one of the household in hilly zone
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Containment Units
3.3.1. State Level- Aggregate across all zones
In the total 630 households covered across the state a majority 444 households which is nearly 71 per
cent have reported presence of septic tanks in the households. This is followed by 179 households with
single pits. High rainfall zone and Hilly Zone have high dependency on single pit disposal system and
low number of septic tanks, detailed zone wise containment description in Annexure 3. One similarity
observed in all the zones is that all the septic tanks have their overflow discharge into storm water drains.
Table 3.5: Households Connected to Containment System
Zone Open pit Septic tank Single pit/
soak pit Twin pit Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 0 82 8 0 90
High Rainfall Zone 0 10 80 0 90
Hilly Zone 1 25 62 2 90
North Eastern Zone 0 83 6 1 90
North Western Zone 0 80 10 0 90
Southern Zone 0 76 12 2 90
Western Zone 0 88 2 0 90
Total 1 444 180 5 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The majority containment units reported by households are septic tank and to check if the containment
units reported as septic tanks meet the design standards certain observations were conducted during
the baseline study.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 23
The presence of partition wall is a major differentiator between a holding tank and septic tank. Of the
630 sampled households only in 170 HHs (27 per cent) the presence of partition walls was observed
while a higher number of 220 HHs (35 per cent) did not have partition walls in the containment units.
Out of the septic tanks with a partition wall it can be noticed that a high number of containment units
have only one partition wall which is presented in Table 3.18.
Table 3.6: Number of Partition Walls in Septic Tank
Zones 1 2 3 4 No response Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 8 2 1 0 79 90
High Rainfall Zone 0 0 0 0 90 90
Hilly Zone 1 0 0 0 88 90
North Eastern Zone 3 3 0 0 85 90
North Western Zone 16 6 0 1 67 90
Southern Zone 2 3 0 0 85 90
Western Zone 15 9 1 0 65 90
Total 45 23 2 1 559 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Notably a high number of septic tanks are provisioned with a vent pipe. In the north eastern zone (75
HHs) and southern zone (71 HHs) the highest presence of vent pipes have been observed while the
least number of vent pipes are observed in the high rainfall zone (7 HHs).
Table 3.7: Septic Tank Lined at the Bottom
Zones Yes No No response Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 36 39 15 90
High Rainfall Zone 6 3 81 90
Hilly Zone 18 8 64 90
North Eastern Zone 51 27 12 90
North Western Zone 73 6 11 90
Southern Zone 71 5 14 90
Western Zone 82 5 3 90
Total 337 93 200 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The data from the observations revealed that a considerable number of households of the western zone
(91 per cent), north western zone (81 per cent) and southern zone (79 per cent) septic tanks are lined
at the bottom. It has also been observed that in the Cauvery delta zone of the total 75 households 48
per cent have septic tanks with lined bottom while 52 per cent are not lined at the bottom.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 24
Table 3.8: Vent Pipe in Septic Tank
Zones Yes No No response Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 69 8 13 90
High Rainfall Zone 7 1 82 90
Hilly Zone 23 3 64 90
North Eastern Zone 75 7 8 90
North Western Zone 68 11 11 90
Southern Zone 71 5 14 90
Western Zone 69 18 3 90
Total 382 53 195 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The presence of a manhole was not very prevalent (15 per cent) in septic tanks across households.
Again septic tanks in the high rainfall zone has been observed to have lesser number of manholes.
Table 3.9: Septic Tank with Manhole
Zones Yes No No response Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 14 63 13 90
High Rainfall Zone 5 5 80 90
Hilly Zone 13 17 60 90
North Eastern Zone 25 57 8 90
North Western Zone 19 61 10 90
Southern Zone 8 68 14 90
Western Zone 10 76 4 90
Total 94 347 189 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The number of manholes provisioned in the septic tank are majorly restricted to 1 as highlighted in table
3.21.
Table 3.10: No. of Manholes in Septic Tank
Zones 1 2 6 No response Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 14 0 0 76 90
High Rainfall Zone 5 0 0 85 90
Hilly Zone 9 0 0 81 90
North Eastern Zone 25 0 0 65 90
North Western Zone 18 0 1 71 90
Southern Zone 8 0 0 82 90
Western Zone 8 2 0 80 90
Total 84 2 1 540 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 25
The trend from the above indicators clearly highlights that a majority of the septic tanks in the north
eastern zone, north western and southern zone align with the design standards of standard septic tank.
There have also been observations to check if the septic tank is connected to a soak pit corresponding
to the design standards. The data received explain that a majority of the households (55.5 per cent) do
not have their septic tanks connected to a soak pit.
Table 3.11: Septic tank Connected to a Soak Pit
Zones Yes No Others No response Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 6 62 1 21 90
High Rainfall Zone 1 7 0 82 90
Hilly Zone 1 22 5 62 90
North Eastern Zone 1 70 0 19 90
North Western Zone 2 45 11 32 90
Southern Zone 4 68 2 16 90
Western Zone 1 76 4 9 90
Total 16 350 23 241 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The measurement of a septic tank as observed are presented in terms of length, width and depth
according to their respective zones in tables 3.23, 3.24 and 3.25. The average range for length, width
and depth of a septic tanks is between 1-3 metre.
Table 3.12: Length of Septic Tank (Metres)
Zones CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
1< 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3
1-3 63 7 24 60 68 65 84 371
3-5 15 1 2 20 12 10 2 62
6-7 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
Total 78 9 26 82 80 76 88 439
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Table 3.13: Width of Septic Tank (Metres)
Zones CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
1< 3 1 0 5 3 4 5 21
1-3 71 7 26 73 73 72 83 405
3-6 4 1 0 4 4 0 0 13
Total 78 9 26 82 80 76 88 439
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 26
Table 3.14: Depth of Septic Tank (Metres)
Depth CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
1-3 60 7 23 50 64 71 74 349
3-5 14 1 3 29 16 4 7 74
5-10 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3
Total 74 9 26 79 80 75 83 426
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Overall, the mean depth of septic tank is 2.6. At the zone level, the mean between 2.4 in SZ to 3.5 in
HRZ. The median is 2.4 across WZ, CDZ, SZ, HZ and slightly higher in NEZ, NWZ and HRZ. The mode
across zones is 3.0 except in HZ which is 2.4, indicating a depth which is slightly lower than the other
zones.
Table 3.15: Septic Tank Size (Metre cube)
Zones Mean Median Mode
Cauvery Delta Zone 2.6 2.4 3.0
High Rainfall Zone 3.5 3.0 3.0
Hilly Zone 2.5 2.4 2.4
North Eastern Zone 2.6 2.7 3.0
North Western Zone 2.6 2.6 3.0
Southern Zone 2.4 2.4 3.0
Western Zone 2.6 2.4 3.0
Total 2.6 2.4 3.0
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Table 3.16: Nearest road width for households
Zones 0-3m 3-5m 5-10m 10-20m 20-30m 30-50m >50m
Cauvery Delta Zone 36 34 2 3 5 1 0
High Rainfall Zone 2 6 66 10 5 0 0
Hilly Zone 17 9 16 8 6 5 25
North Eastern Zone 16 52 3 4 0 0 0
North Western Zone 42 38 5 3 0 1 1
Southern Zone 38 36 0 0 0 0 0
Western Zone 51 36 0 0 0 0 0
Total 202 211 92 28 16 7 26
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
3.3.2. Single Pit
After septic tanks single pits have reported to be the next common containment systems across the
seven zones. The covered data revealed that high rainfall and hilly zones have reported high number
of single pits in comparison to septic tanks. To understand the design of single pits certain indicators
were covered and observed across the zones. Indicator on number of rings in a single pit revealed that
on an average 5-8 rings were observed in a single pit. Further the height of the ring was observed to be
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 27
between 1-2 metre while the diameter was 3-4 feet. As per observation data the number of rings in a
single pit is tabulated below in Table 3.28.
Table 3.17: No. of rings in single pits
Zones 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 Total
Cauvery Delta Zone 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 10
High Rainfall Zone 0 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 9
Hilly Zone 1 0 2 4 13 12 7 4 6 1 3 1 1 55
North Eastern Zone 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
North Western Zone 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Southern Zone 0 1 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 12
Western Zone 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Total 1 3 6 12 27 16 15 4 8 3 4 1 1 101
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
In the absence of information on number and size of rings, data was collected on total depth of the
single pit in feet. The high rainfall zone has reported maximum of 33 households with single pits having
a depth of 10 feet. The data from other zones is very negligible.
To check if the pit was ventilated a question on the presence of vent pipe elicited a 21 per cent
affirmative response while a major 70 per cent households provided no response. The high rainfall zone
and hilly zone have given the highest positive responses for presence of vent pipes.
Table 3.18: Does the single pit have vent
Vent CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Yes 11 53 47 5 8 8 1 133
No 1 27 15 2 2 4 1 52
No response 78 10 28 83 80 78 88 445
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
It was reported that 90 per cent of the containment (septic tanks and pits) systems were constructed at
the same time the toilet was constructed and the data reveals that majority of the toilets along with the
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 28
containment systems have been constructed after 2000. In spite of 90 percent of the containment
systems having been constructed for above 10-year period only 36 per cent of the households have
stated that the containment unit ever filled up completely and that it was de-sludged. The reasons for
desludging were mainly attributed to backflow (102 HHs) and overflow of containment (93 HHs).
Table 3.20 indicates that majority of the households have containment systems that have never filled
up till date.
Table 3.19: containment filling up rate
Filling up rate CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total (%)
Monthly 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0.8 (5)
One year 12 7 1 8 1 8 2 6.2 (39)
One to two year 4 11 6 7 2 6 2 6.0 (38)
Three to five years 3 14 8 5 7 13 1 8.1 (51)
More than five years 20 17 5 12 18 10 8 14.3 (90)
Never filled up till date 42 36 68 49 61 44 65 57.9 (365)
No response 7 5 2 6 1 9 12 6.7 (42)
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Of the containment units de-sludged a maximum of 40 per cent households have reported that the
containment unit takes more than 5 years to fill up.
Table 3.21 indicates that the Cauvery delta zone have the most number of households which have
containment units filling up within one-year period and the Cauvery delta zone also has the most number
of households with containment systems taking more than five years to fill.
An analysis on time taken for lined containment systems to fill up reveals that even within lined
containment systems it has been reported that a major 30 per cent of the tanks have not filled up till
date.
Table 3.20: Time Taken for Lined Containment Systems To Fill Up
Is the septic tank lined at the bottom?
How long did it take for the containment unit to fill up ?
CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
No response
One to two year 1 1 3 3 0 3 1 12
More than five years 1 7 0 2 3 1 4 18
Never filled up till date 2 15 42 6 18 6 57 146
No response 1 0 1 1 0 0 10 13
Three to five years 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 5
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 29
Table 3.20: Time Taken for Lined Containment Systems To Fill Up
Is the septic tank lined at the bottom?
How long did it take for the containment unit to fill up ?
CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
One year 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 6
Total 7 25 46 13 21 14 74 200
No
One year 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
One to two year 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 6
More than five years 2 4 1 3 1 3 2 16
Never filled up till date 4 7 4 2 2 12 2 33
No response 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 4
Three to five years 0 3 1 3 1 8 0 16
Monthly 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
One year 4 4 0 4 0 3 1 16
Total 13 23 7 14 4 27 5 93
Yes
One year 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3
One to two year 3 6 2 3 2 3 1 20
More than five years 17 6 4 7 14 6 2 56
Never filled up till date 36 14 22 41 41 26 6 186
No response 5 4 1 4 1 8 2 25
Three to five years 2 10 7 2 6 3 0 30
Monthly 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 4
One year 6 1 0 3 1 2 0 13
Total 70 42 37 63 65 49 11 337
Total
One year 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4
One to two year 4 11 6 7 2 6 2 38
More than five years 20 17 5 12 18 10 8 90
Never filled up till date 42 36 68 49 61 44 65 365
No response 7 5 2 6 1 9 12 42
Three to five years 3 14 8 5 7 13 1 51
Monthly 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 5
One year 11 6 0 8 1 7 2 35
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
4Emptying and
Transportation4.1. Emptying 33
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 33
4. Emptying and Transportation
Emptying
4.1.1. State level aggregate across all zones
In terms of desludging Table 4.1 highlights that very few households have reported desludging while a
majority 28 per cent claimed to have never de-sludged. Of this the hilly zone has the maximum numbers
of households who have never de-sludged while the high rainfall zone seems to be having a more regular
desludging. The high rainfall zone has also high number of households reported to be desludging in the
past one year.
Table 4.1: Septic Tank/Pit last desludged
Last-desludged CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
1 year back 7 14 2 9 7 6 2 47
2 years back 6 7 4 5 5 5 5 37
3 years back 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 9
4 years back 3 0 1 0 2 1 2 9
5 years back 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 9
6 years back 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 6
7 years back 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
1- 5 months 9 6 2 15 4 4 1 41
6-8 months 7 7 4 2 3 4 2 29
Never desludged 26 9 44 37 11 11 40 178
No response 30 43 28 17 54 57 35 264
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The responses on frequency of desludging is also mostly skewed towards more than a five-year period
or never done. Between the zones the high rainfall zones is reported to having the highest desludging
frequency while the hilly zone does not report regular desludging.
Table 4.2: Frequency of desludging
Frequency CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Monthly 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 5
Once in three months 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
Every six months 4 2 1 4 0 2 0 13
Every year 7 6 2 8 1 6 1 31
Once in two years 7 12 5 10 3 5 4 46
Once in three years 1 11 3 2 2 3 0 22
Once in five years 4 5 6 4 7 8 1 35
More than five years 15 16 2 7 15 10 8 73
Never done 20 29 29 24 47 21 53 223
No response 28 9 42 28 14 35 23 179
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 34
In the data received across zones there is a clear consensus on private vacuutgs being the prominent
option for desludging with north eastern zone and Cauvery zone resorting to most number of private
operators.
Table 4.3: Desludging Operators
Desludging Operators CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Local sweeper 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5
Municipal sweeper 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 7
Municipal vaccutug 9 3 4 1 2 4 0 23
Private vaccutug 35 44 14 37 25 31 11 197
Local sweeper 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4
Never done, so do not know 27 25 54 35 51 20 50 262
Manual scavenging 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3
No response 19 14 17 17 9 29 24 129
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Of the total 630 households covered only 27 per cent (168 HHs) households have given information on
desludging costs while the majority 73 per cent households have not responded or do not have
information on costs. Of the households who have responded a majority of 104 households (17 per cent)
have stated payments for desludging costs to be within 1,000-3,000 rupees and this range applies for
households across all zones. A small 3 per cent households have reported paying below 1,000 rupees
for desludging. The Cauvery delta zone and north eastern zone have provided maximum responses on
desludging costs and this again majorly falls in the 1,000-3,000 range.
Table 4.4: Desludging costs
Zones CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
1,000-3000 34 5 9 29 8 8 11 104
3,000-5,000 1 1 5 4 9 3 6 29
5,000-10,000 1 4 3 1 1 0 3 13
Above 10,000 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5
Below 1,000 2 0 1 11 3 0 0 17
No response 51 30 34 37 13 73 27 265
Do not Know 1 50 35 7 56 5 43 197
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The above tables indicate that private players are the most preferred desludging actors across zones.
The table below highlights that irrespective of number of private players in each zone the desludging
costs ranges between 1,000-3,000 across zones.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 35
Table 4.5: Desludging costs of operators
Zones
Desludging costs
No response
Local sweeper
Municipal sweeper
Municipal vaccutug
Private vaccutug
Total
Cauvery Zone
0-1,000 0 0 0 2 8 10
1,000-3,000 0 0 0 5 12 17
3,000-6,000 0 0 0 1 7 8
No response 46 0 0 1 8 55
Total 46 0 0 9 35 90
High Rainfall Zone
0-1,000 0 0 0 1 1
1,000-3,000 1 0 1 2 22 26
3,000-6,000 0 0 0 1 3 4
Above 6,000 1 0 0 1 2
No response 40 0 0 0 17 57
Total 42 0 1 3 44 90
Hilly Zone
0-1,000 0 0 0 0 2 2
1,000-3,000 0 0 0 4 3 7
3,000-5,000 0 0 0 0 3 3
10,000 0 0 1 1
No response 72 0 0 0 5 77
Total 72 0 0 4 14 90
North Eastern Zone
0-1,000 0 0 0 0 5 5
1,000-3,000 0 0 0 0 25 25
3,000-5,000 0 0 0 1 5 6
No response 52 0 0 0 2 54
Total 52 0 0 1 37 90
North Western Zone
0-1,000 1 0 0 0 1
1,000-3,000 0 1 0 2 6 9
3,000-5,000 0 0 0 0 5 5
10,000 0 0 0 1 1
No response 61 0 0 0 13 74
Total 62 1 0 2 25 90
Southern Zone
0-1,000 0 0 0 1 0 1
1,000-3,000 0 0 2 0 13 15
3,000-5,000 0 1 0 0 3 4
Above 6,000 0 0 0 1 2 3
No response 52 0 0 2 13 67
Total 52 1 2 4 31 90
Western Zone
1,000-3,000 0 1 0 0 5 6
3,000-5,000 1 0 0 0 2 3
Above 6,000 0 2 0 0 1 3
No response 75 0 0 0 3 78
Total 76 3 0 0 11 90
Grand Total 402 5 3 23 197 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
A total of 47 operators were covered to understand the desludging practices across the seven zones.
The data on characteristics of the desludging vehicle reveal that a majority 36 per cent operators
reported tank capacity between 4,500-70,00 litres and 2,000-4,500 litres each. In the western zone and
Cauvery delta zone, most number of operators have reported tank capacities between 2,000-4,500 litres
while in the north western zone and high rainfall zone majority of the operators have reported tank
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 36
capacities between 4500-7000 litres sludge. Further only in the north eastern zone and Cauvery delta
zone the operators have reported tank capacities of more than 7,000 litres for desludging.
Table 4.6: Tank Capacity (litres)
Capacity (in litres) CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
2,000-4,500 4 1 1 3 0 3 5 17
4,500-9,500 1 5 2 0 7 1 1 17
Above 9,500 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 9
No response 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
Total 10 6 4 10 7 4 6 47
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Collection and transportation aggregate state level Aggregating all zones, as described in detail in the above sections, a number of 47 interviews with
cesspool operators have been carried out during the study. A majority of 68% of the interview partners
is employed by the service provider and 26% are the owner of the service, while the remaining are
relatives or municipal staff respectively. Services are carried out since 1 – 2 up to 14 – 15 years, while
the majority of 11 operators stated, the service have been started 4 – 5 years ago. 70% of the owners
hold 1 truck, 15% has 2 trucks, 9% a number of 3 trucks and 1 service provider has 5. Mostly, desludging
of septic tanks is the only service, occasionally water supply and drainage of cow dung belong to the
offered services. A share of 79% use business cards, which are distributed to households, as a source
for marketing, whereas pamphlets, mobile numbers on tankers or display boards at public places rarely
being used. The busiest times during the day are from 6 – 12am in the months from October –
December.
Maximum responses for data on distance travelled to households for desludging has been elicited from
the operators in the Cauvery delta zone and north eastern zone. While majority 49 per cent operators
have reported travelling between 6-20 kms to reach the households a considerable 38 per cent operators
have reported travelling up to 50 kms.
Table 4.7: Distance to Households for Desludging
Distance (in kms) CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
6-20 8 2 1 7 1 2 2 23
20-50 2 4 1 1 4 2 4 18
Above 100 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3
Blanks 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3
Total 10 6 4 10 7 4 6 47
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The Cauvery delta zone and the north eastern zone has the maximum number of operators traversing
between 6-20 kms. The high rainfall zone, north western zone and western zone has maximum number
of people plying between 20-50 kms. Operators in the Hilly zone and western zone have claimed to
travel distances above 50 kms and this is very negligible at 6 per cent.
Distance to discharge point - It can be inferred from the data that the larger part of 77 per cent of the
operators from all zones travel only between 0-20 kms distance to the discharge point.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 37
Table 4.8: Distance to Households for Desludging
Distance to discharge point (Km)
CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
0-20 9 4 1 8 6 2 6 36
20-50 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 7
200 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
No response 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
Total 10 6 4 10 7 4 5 47
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The reasons stated for not discharging at the treatment plant are primarily distance and time followed
by procedures which is represented below in Table 4.9. Contrary to other zones, in the north eastern
zone maximum number of people have stated procedures as the chief reason for not discharging in the
treatment plant while distance and time has not been a pressing factor for not emptying at the treatment
plants in this zone.
Table 4.9: Reasons for not discharging in the treatment plant
Zones Procedures Distance Time Total
Cauvery delta zone 1 5 5 11
High rainfall zone 0 6 5 11
Hilly Zone 0 3 3 6
North eastern zone 6 1 2 9
North western zone 2 5 5 12
Southern zone 1 3 3 7
Western zone 0 6 6 12
Total 10 29 29 68
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Nine out of 47 operators stated to also desludge chemical waste from industries, such as leather,
needle, clothes, oil, rubber, steel, communication and soft drink companies. Only in 2 cases, operators
from Sriperumbudur and Nagercoil stated, all parts of the city would be accessible by the cesspool.
Non-accessible locations are mentioned in the above sections. Containment units without openings are
broken by the operator in most cases and sometimes by household members. A majority is using a
steel rod and hammer for breaking the tank. This process can take a time of only 3 min up to 2 hours
and among all interviewed operators about 30 min on average. Independent of the time duration
required for this, a share of 32 per cent of the operator’s charge Rs.100 – 600 extra for this service.
Out of the 47 operators interviewed only 24 operators have revealed using personal protective
equipment. The operators from the north western zone have reported highest usage of person protective
equipment and overall masks are stated as the most used safety equipment across zones.
Wastewater Management This section captures the infrastructure and arrangement at the household level set up to manage
wastewater generated from other sources such as washing, bathing, kitchen, washing utensils etc. The
table 4.27 below provides the various sources and the disposal point for the wastewater.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 38
Table 4.10: Infrastructure and Arrangement for Wastewater Management at Household Level
Sources of wastewater
Disposal Point
Proportion of sampled households (No. of households)
CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ
Washing utensils
Septic Tank - - - 2.2% (2) 1.1% (1) - -
Pit - 4.4% (4) - 1.1% (1) 1.1% (1) 2.2% (2) -
Kitchen garden 85% (77)
44% (40)
24% (22)
14% (13)
36% (33)
30% (27)
13% (12)
Storm water drain 7.7% (7) 26% (24)
29% (26)
54% (49)
46% (42)
58% (52)
80% (72)
Roadside 2.2% (2) 3% (3) 12% (11)
10% (9) 4.4% (4) 7.7% (7) 3% (3)
Ditch - - 10% (9) - 6.6% (6) - 1.1% (1)
Canal 1.1% (1) - - - - - -
Others 3% (3) 20% (18)
23% (21)
15% (14)
3% (3) - 2.2% (2)
Kitchen
Septic Tank - - - 1.1% (1) - - -
Pit - 4.4% (4) - 1.1% (1) 1.1% (1) 2.2% (2) -
Kitchen garden 85% (77)
45% (41)
24% (22)
14% (13)
35% (32)
30% (27)
14% (13)
Storm water drain 7.7% (7) 26% (24)
30% (27)
55% (50)
48% (44)
58% (53)
78% (71)
Roadside 2.2% (2) 2.2% (2) 12% (11)
8.8% (8) 3% (3) 7.7% (7) 3% (3)
Ditch - - 11% (10)
- 6.6% (6) - 1.1% (1)
Canal 1.1% (1) - - - - - -
Others 3% (3) 20% (18)
21% (19)
17% (16)
3% (3) 1.1% (1) 2.2% (2)
Bathing
Septic Tank - - - 10% (9) 2.2% (2) - 1.1% (1)
Pit - 4.4% (4) - 2.2% (2) 1.1% (1) 2.2% (2) -
Kitchen garden 83% (75)
44% (40)
22% (20)
8.8% (8) 35% (32)
30% (27)
13% (12)
Storm water drain 7.7% (7) 26% (24)
335 (30) 51% (46)
46% (42)
60% (54)
78% (71)
Roadside 2.2% (2) 3% (3) 12% (11)
8.8% (8) 4.4% (4) 7.7% (7) 3% (3)
Ditch - 12% (11)
- 6.6% (6) - 1.1% (1)
Canal - - - - - - 1.1% (1)
Others 2.2% (2) 20% (18)
16% (15)
15% (14)
3% (3) 1.1% (1) 3% (3)
Cloth washing
Septic Tank - - - 10% (9) - - 1.1% (1)
Pit - 2.2% (2) - - 1.1% (1) 2.2% (2) -
Kitchen garden 14% (13)
45% (41)
22% (20)
12% (11)
36% (33)
31% (28)
85% (77)
Storm water drain 78% (71)
24% (22)
34% (31)
50% (45)
47% (43)
58% (52)
8.8% (8)
Roadside 3% (3) 3% (3) 12% (11)
12% (11)
4.4% (4) 7.7% (7) 2.2% (2)
Ditch 1.1% (1) - 12% (11)
- 5.5% (5) - -
Canal - 1.1% (1) - 1.1% (1) - - -
Others 2.2% (2) 21% (19)
16% (15)
14% (13)
3% (3) 1.1% (1) 2.2% (2)
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
5Treatment
and Reuse5.1. Treatment 41
5.2. Reuse 43
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 41
5. Treatment and Reuse
Treatment
As part of the study, wastewater treatment plants were assessed for their functionality and to understand
the extent of wastewater management. Most of the towns covered had no treatment plants for the
city/town level, though there were a few private treatment units, these were operated in closed
boundaries and the entry to these were not easy and hence the study does not have data on such
treatment units. In few of the cities such as Kancheepuram, Thanjavur, Vedaranyam, and Ooty there
were treatment plants, which could be assessed, however no dedicated operator was available during
the study to provide details on these assets. The following are some information and observations made
during the visit to the above treatment plant
5.1.1. Vedaranyam
A treatment plant, also called “Arakathu thurai sanitation system” was built for rehabilitating tsunami
affected households. A simplified sewer system collects and transfers the sewage (both black and grey
water) to the treatment plant, which works, on principles of moving bed bio-reactor (MBBR). The
treatment plant is operational for the past 10 years and was funded by the World Bank. The treatment
plant is operated by the urban local body, which also pays for the operational and maintenance
requirement. It covers only certain wards of the town, only those which are rehabilitated tsunami
structures, while the remaining households in the town have onsite sanitation system for containing
black water and their grey water is discharged into open drains.
5.1.2. Thanjavur
Thanjavur has an extensive area covered by underground drainage network. The wastewater from all
the households connected to the network drain into a treatment plant working in the principles of aerated
sludge process. The treatment plant has a provision for an operator room and laboratory, but during the
study, neither operator nor any lab instruments were to be found. The treated wastewater still had
turbidity and smell of ammonia; it was being discharged into a nearby lake. The sludge handling facility
in the treatment plant is unutilized with several maintenance issues related to the drying bed, pumps
and distribution channels. The treatment facility is also located in a remote setting making it difficult to
locate and thereby limiting the changes of co-treating faecal sludge.
Figure 5.1: A) Aerobic Treatment Plant Unit at Thanjavur, b) Treated Effluent Foaming at the Outlet Point
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
a b
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 42
5.1.3. Ooty
The wastewater from entire Udhagamandalam is conveyed through pump to the treatment plant. The
capacity of the treatment plant is about 5 million litres/day and treated the wastewater using Activated
sludge process. The treatment process includes primary, secondary (Figure 5.2) and sludge treatment
facilities. The wastewater goes through a screen chamber to remove all the larger floating particles such
as plastics. The screened wastewater is then conveyed to primary treatment unit for grit removal and
are 2 of no’s. Then the wastewater is conveyed to the 2 No’s of aeration units where the organics
undergo aerobic decomposition and then its brought into secondary clarifier, where sufficient retention
time is provided for the settling of sludge. The clarified water is then disposed of into the sewage farms.
Some portion of sludge is re-circulated into the aeration units as activated sludge. Excess sludge is then
sent into the sludge thickener and then undergoes membrane press for sludge dewatering and layer on
sludge drying bed for drying.
Figure 5.2: Aeration Treatment Module at Ooty
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
5.1.4. Kancheepuram
The first Under Ground Sewerage Scheme (UGSS) was commissioned on 1978 which covers a total of
85.00 Km after which the new UGSS scheme was commissioned on 2014 which covers a collection
length of 33.51 Km. Total Household connections to the UGSS as per DPR is 26,836 whereas only
18,643 connections are given as on date. The collected sewage is being treated by a Waste Stabilization
Pond, Figure 5.3 that covers an area of 25.46 Acres and has a capacity of 14.71 MLD. It currently treats
9 MLD and the treated water is being discharged into a lake.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 43
Figure 5.3: Waste Stabilization Pond at Kancheepuram
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
At a few treatment plants visited during the study it was found that systems built years ago such as
those in Salem, where the construction completed 5 years back, the plants yet awaits commissioning,
this is due to the fact that households are yet to be connected to sewer networks.
Reuse
The reuse part of the study was carried out by interviewing farmers from various agro climatic zones of
Tamil Nadu. The below sections, describe the characteristics and operational reuse modalities of these
farmers across the various zones and also compare them at a state level. The use of wastewater for
irrigation purpose was practiced in 5 zones except in hilly and western zone. Out of the total 43 number
of farmers covered 39 percent i.e.17 farmers reported to be using wastewater for irrigation and 30
percent i.e. 13 farmers reported use of Fecal sludge as soil conditioner. Fecal sludge as soil conditioning
was used to grow crops like coconut, banana, leaves, potatoes, cabbage, sugarcane. The reasons
stated for use of wastewater was presence of high nutrient value and lack of freshwater availability.
None of the farmers stated the occurrence of any water borne disease except one farmer in north
eastern zone claimed one of his family members suffered from cholera. However, to establish exact
linkage between wastewater use and disease requires further focused study. The zone wise details of
wastewater irrigation and crops grown is given in table below.
Table 5.1:Wastewater reuse across zones
Zones No of
farmers interviewed
Common source of irrigation
Wastewater used (No.
of farmers)
Crops irrigated by wastewater
Fecal sludge used- (No. of
farmers) Yes No
Cauvery delta zone 7 Bore wells 5 2 Banana, Rice, Coconut, Bamboo
2
High rainfall zone 6 Canals, bore wells
2 4 Banana, Coconut, Leaves
1
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 44
Table 5.1:Wastewater reuse across zones
Zones No of
farmers interviewed
Common source of irrigation
Wastewater used (No.
of farmers)
Crops irrigated by wastewater
Fecal sludge used- (No. of
farmers) Yes No
Hilly Zone 8 Bore wells, open wells
0 8 - 1
North eastern zone 5 Lake, canal, open wells
4 1 Sugarcane, Groundnut, Rice
3
North western zone 6 Bore wells, Open wells
3 3 Rice, Corn, Leaves
2
Southern zone 4 Bore wells, Open wells
3 1 Banana, Rice 0
Western zone 7 Bore wells, Open wells
0 7 - 4
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
5.2.1. State level aggregate across all zones
In this section the data collected across all 7 zones, as described in detail above is aggregated to give
an overview of the overall characteristics and operational reuse modalities in Tamil Nadu. For irrigation
purposes, the majority of the farmers use surface irrigation and only 3 farmers practice irrigation through
sprinklers and 2 practice dripping irrigation. Freshwater is being used for the irrigation of the following
crops and vegetables as shown in Table 5.1.
Table 5.2: Crops irrigated with freshwater
Crop/ Vegetable Number of
total farmers CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ
Rice 14 2 2 4 3 3
Banana 10 1 5 3 1
Corn 6 5 1
Carrots 6 6
Coconut 5 4 1
Potatoes 3 3
Sugarcane 4 1 3
Ground nut 3 2 1
Cabbage 4 4
Tapioca 2 2
Mango 2 1 1
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 45
Table 5.2: Crops irrigated with freshwater
Crop/ Vegetable Number of
total farmers CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ
Brinjal 1 1
White onion 1 1
Guava 1 1
Beet root 1 1
Ladyfinger 1 1
Cauliflower 1 1
Beans 1 1
Radish 1 1
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
The sources of fresh water supply for irrigation are bore wells and open wells in most cases (35%
respectively). Some farmers use water from canals or rain water (14% respectively). A few farmers from
the delta zone use salt water. 63% of the farmers stated, freshwater would be available throughout the
year, while the remaining 37% face seasonal problems, mostly during summer. 1 – 2 hours of daily
water supply is most frequent as shown in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4: Duration of Freshwater Supply (in number of answers)
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
68 per cent of the farmers stated pumping would be required for availing irrigation water but only 3 out
of these specified the costs of electricity related to irrigation (Rs.100, Rs.300 & Rs.1,200). None of the
interviewed farmers across all zones pays for water supply for irrigation and only 3 mentioned there
would be a subsidy available for irrigation (all 3 from different zones and towns).
Most frequent used fertilizers are urea and potassium, whereas goat as well as cow dung are commonly
used as well. Less frequent, M45, TAP and compost are being used. Usually, the fertilizer is manually
mixed with soil and brought on the fields. The costs for fertilizers differ vastly across the farmers covered,
starting from Rs.300 up to Rs.50,000. On average about 3,700 are being paid for fertilizers.
2
14
8
5
2 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
less than 1 hour 1 - 2 hours 3 - 4 hours 5 - 6 hours more than 6 hours
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 46
40% of the farmers stated to also use wastewater for irrigation, because of its high nutritious value (10
cases) or due to a lack of fresh water (6 cases). In the western zone, none of the farmers uses
wastewater. Sources are either own septic tanks/ pits (10 cases) or STP outlets (3 cases), supplied by
the farmer (7 cases), private truck operators (6 cases) or the municipality (3 cases). Usually, no
transportation of wastewater is required and farmers do not pay for the supply. The types of crops
irrigated with wastewater are listed in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Crops irrigated with wastewater
Crop/ vegetable Number of
total farmers CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ
Rice 9 4 3 1 1
Banana 6 2 2 2
Coconut 3 1 2
Leaves 2 1 1
Corn 2 2
Groundnut 1 1
Sugar cane 1 1
Bamboo 1 1
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Among all 47 covered farmers, only 1 mentioned, one of his family members would have suffered from
cholera, whereas all remaining interviewed farmers did not report any cases of water borne related
diseases among their family members. 4 of the farmers stated to receive any complaints regarding the
quality of crops/ vegetables. Restrictions from government bodies/ organizations towards the use of
wastewater for irrigation are not known by any of the farmers.
28% of the farmers across all zones claim to use faecal sludge as soil conditioner. Out of these, 7
farmers use dried sludge and 5 farmers used fresh sludge from cesspool. The sludge is supplied to the
fields during cultivation (7 cases) or 3 days to 3 months after the arrival of the sludge on the farm. Most
farmers engage a private desludging operator for faecal sludge disposal. Only 1 of the farmers pays
Rs.50 for availing faecal sludge, while the remaining ones stated neither to pay for the sludge nor to be
paid by the disposer. Crops grown with the use of faecal sludge are listed in Table 5.4 below.
Table 5.4: Crops grown using faecal sludge
Crop/ vegetable Number of
total farmers
CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ
Sugar cane 4 2 2
Banana 3 1 1 1
Coconut 3 1 1 1
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 47
Table 5.4: Crops grown using faecal sludge
Crop/ vegetable Number of
total farmers
CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ
Leaves 2 1 1
Rice 1 1
Potato 1 1
Cabbage 1 1
Tapioca 1 1
Grass for cows 1 1
Mango 1 1
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Figure 5.5: Farmers being Interviewed at Ooty and Erode
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
With 1 exception, none of the farmers using faecal sludge suffers from mosquitoes breeding due to
faecal sludge and only 1 farmer uses pesticides (bleeding powder) against mosquitos and other pests.
None of the farmers uses any equipment while handling faecal sludge. In 2 cases, farmers face problems
when using faecal sludge as soil conditioner: one state the crops would not grow properly while another
one mentioned it would affect other crops than the intended one as well. None of the farmers knew about
any restrictions from government bodies/ organisation towards the use of faecal sludge for agricultural
purpose.
6Conclusion6.1. User Interface 51
6.2. Containment 52
6.3. Desludging 55
6.4. Collection and Transportation 56
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 51
6. Conclusion
The study is a detailed snapshot of the sanitation situation across the state of Tamil Nadu. Various
stakeholders were covered and infrastructure assessed across the sanitation chain to draw inferences
and understand the situation. The classification of the state under various agro climatic zones did prove
useful, as there were significant differences in the infrastructure patterns across these regions.
User Interface The condition for household study necessitated the presence of a toilet and further analysis indicated
that most households (60 per cent) across the seven zones have only one toilet. The location of the
toilets irrespective of the number of toilets is concentrated at the back of the houses and a high number
of households attributed space availability as the prime factor for the location of toilet. Of the 630
households only 89 households have not constructed toilets at the time of construction of their houses.
The 89 households which have constructed toilets at a later point have majorly initiated constructed
post 2014 which can be attributed to the introduction of government sanitation schemes.
Table 6.1: User Interface
User Interface CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
No. of Toilets in HHs
1 50 40 74 48 59 58 49 378
2 32 33 10 30 17 21 28 171
3 3 10 4 5 7 4 5 38
4 3 6 0 5 2 7 4 27
5 1 1 1 1 2 0 4 10
6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
No response 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 4
Total 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 630
Location of Toilet
Front side of the house
3 8 30 24 32 10 44 151
Outside the house 15 3 3 13 7 6 2 49
Rear side of the house
47 45 33 21 35 49 29 259
Within the house 25 34 24 32 16 25 15 171
What is the reason for locating the toilet in particular area?
Space availability 77 64 85 72 79 81 77 535
As per Vastu 10 9 5 14 9 8 13 68
Safety 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 11
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 52
Table 6.1: User Interface
User Interface CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Privacy 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 4
For visitors 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Decided by family 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Attached bathroom 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Due to foul smell 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
No response 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 6
Toilet constructed at the time of building construction
Yes 72 88 72 80 77 71 81 541
No 18 2 18 10 19 9 89
Containment
Containment systems varied widely with respect to the soil and ground water conditions. Masons built
the skill of adapting containment units for storage of black water based on their understanding of these
geographical conditions and the requirements from households. At places, where the supply of
desludging service is limited, containment systems are built largely with option for percolation through
its walls. Thereby only 36 per cent of the households responded with a yes when questioned if the
containment systems ever filled up. Adding to this, the question on time taken for containment units to
fill elicited maximum responses on containment never filled up till date followed by containment taking
more than five years. However, the reported data on septic tank lining indicates that nearly 50 per cent
households stated that containment systems are lined at the bottom. Further analysis highlighted that
even in most households with lined septic tanks the tank has never been filled up till date. This may be
due to the depth of septic tank and the mean depth that has been recorded across zones is 2.6 metres
or percolation through its walls as mentioned above. At most places throughout the state it was found
that containment systems resembled septic tank in shape but not all aspects of the design were
considered while constructing them, elements such as partition, centre opening in partition wall, vent
pipes, soak pits and others, were not common during this study. The households connecting septic
tanks to soak pits is also negligible The grey water and at times overflow of black water from containment
systems drained out into open drains outside the house, which conveyed it further to low lying lands or
water bodies.
Table 6.2: Containment
Containment CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Containment Unit constructed same time as toilet
Later 5 6 2 10 0 9 3 35
Same time as when the toilet was
constructed 80 83 83 68 89 80 86 569
No response 5 1 5 12 1 1 1 26
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 53
Table 6.2: Containment
Containment CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Did the containment ever fill up completely
Yes 56 11 23 53 27 33 23 226
No response 34 79 67 37 63 57 67 404
How long did it take for the containment to fill up?
Monthly 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 5
One year 12 7 1 8 1 8 2 39
One to two year 4 11 6 7 2 6 2 38
Three to five years 3 14 8 5 7 13 1 51
More than five years 20 17 5 12 18 10 8 90
Never filled up till date 42 36 68 49 61 44 65 365
No response 7 5 2 6 1 9 12 42
Households connected to septic
tanks 82 10 25 83 80 76 88 444
No. of chambers in septic tank
1 23 2 21 6 32 20 36 140
2 21 2 1 18 25 16 37 120
3 6 1 1 1 4 9 12 34
4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 1 3 0 8 4 0 0 16
No response 38 82 67 57 24 45 5 318
Partition Wall in septic tank
No 37 5 23 34 38 46 37 220
Yes 25 4 2 26 38 25 50 170
No response 28 81 65 30 14 19 3 240
Presence of Vent Pipe in septic tank
Yes 69 7 23 75 68 71 69 382
No 8 1 3 7 11 5 18 53
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 54
Table 6.2: Containment
Containment CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
No response 13 82 64 8 11 14 3 195
Does the septic tank have a manhole
Yes 14 5 13 25 19 8 10 94
No 63 5 17 57 61 68 76 347
No response 13 80 60 8 10 14 4 189
Septic Tank lined at the bottom
Yes 36 6 18 51 73 71 82 337
No 39 3 8 27 6 5 5 93
No response 15 81 64 12 11 14 3 200
Septic tank connected to a soak pit
Yes 6 1 1 1 2 4 1 16
No 62 7 22 70 45 68 76 350
Others 1 0 5 0 11 2 4 23
No response 21 82 62 19 32 16 9 241
Households connected to single
pit 8 80 62 6 10 12 2 180
No. of rings in single pits
2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
4 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 6
5 2 0 4 1 2 3 0 12
6 3 5 13 1 3 1 1 27
7 1 0 12 1 0 2 0 16
8 2 2 7 0 1 3 0 15
9 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 55
Table 6.2: Containment
Containment CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
10 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 8
11 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3
12 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 4
13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Desludging Desludging services for onsite containment units were prevalent throughout the state, with access more
easily available in bigger cities or towns in proximity to such cities. There are a lot of private operators
who provide these services at competitive rates and thereby make up for the gap, left by the government
services. At places such as hill stations, it was found that there was a dearth of private operators and
they usually charged highly for their services, forcing the household to adopt other means to prevent
the sludge build up in the containment units. Such techniques usually involved using some form of
biological or chemical agent which claims to digest the sludge in such containment units. The reported
desludging frequency amongst households is very poor with a majority 28 per cent claiming to have
never de-sludged. Of this the hilly zone has the maximum numbers of households who have never de-
sludged while the high rainfall zone seems to be having a more regular desludging. Similarly, the
frequency of desludging is higher in the high rainfall zone and least in hilly zone. The cost of desludging
largely falls within the range of 1000-3,000 rupees irrespective of number of private players in operation.
Table 6.3: Desludging
Desludging CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Pit/Septic tank last de-sludged
1 year back 7 14 2 9 7 6 2 47
2 years back 6 7 4 5 5 5 5 37
3 years back 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 9
4 years back 3 0 1 0 2 1 2 9
5 years back 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 9
6 years back 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 6
7 years back 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
1- 5 months back 9 6 2 15 4 4 1 41
6-8 months back 7 7 4 2 3 4 2 29
Never de-sludged 26 9 44 37 11 11 40 178
No response 30 43 28 17 54 57 35 264
Frequency of desludging
Monthly 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 5
Once in 3 months 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 56
Table 6.3: Desludging
Desludging CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Every six months 4 2 1 4 0 2 0 13
Every year 7 6 2 8 1 6 1 31
Once in two years 7 12 5 10 3 5 4 46
Once in three years 1 11 3 2 2 3 0 22
Once in five years 4 5 6 4 7 8 1 35
More than five years 15 16 2 7 15 10 8 73
Never done 20 29 29 24 47 21 53 223
No response 28 9 42 28 14 35 23 179
Who de-sludged
Local sweeper 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5
Municipal sweeper 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 7
Municipal vaccutug 9 3 4 1 2 4 0 23
Private vaccutug 35 44 14 37 25 31 11 197
Local Sweeper 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4
Never done, so do not know 27 25 54 35 51 20 50 262
Manual scavenging 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3
No response 19 14 17 17 9 29 24 129
Cost of desludging services
1,000-3,000 34 5 9 29 8 8 11 104
3,000-5,000 1 1 5 4 9 3 6 29
5,000-10,000 1 4 3 1 1 0 3 13
Above 10,000 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5
Below 1,000 2 0 1 11 3 0 0 17
Blanks 51 30 34 37 13 73 27 265
No response 1 50 35 7 56 5 43 197
Collection and Transportation Private operators usually use new vehicles, typically not older than 10 years to keep the running cost
low, when old, these vehicles are sold in rural markets. Private operators enter into these business after
seeking tremendous opportunity from others, and this is very common with friends and family members
of the operators who on seeking the success of this business, invest in additional vehicles and start
providing services. Thus, at many places across the state, the operators had a close relationship with
one another thereby being able to build a nexus to keep away new entrants and maintain healthy
competition.
A total of 47 operators were covered and the truck tank capacity ranges 2000-9500 in most trucks. The
average distance travelled to households and disposal points primarily falls between 0-20 kms across
all zones.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 57
Table 6.4: Collection and Transportation
Zones CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Desludging operators
covered 10 6 4 10 7 4 6 47
Truck Tank Capacity (ltrs)
2,000-4,500 4 1 1 3 0 3 5 17
4,500-9,500 1 5 2 0 7 1 1 17
Above 9,500 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 9
No response 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
Distance to Households for desludging (Kms)
6-20 8 2 1 7 1 2 2 23
20-50 2 4 1 1 4 2 4 18
Above 100 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3
Not applicable 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3
Distance to discharge point (kms)
0-20kms 9 4 1 8 6 2 6 36
20-50kms 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 7
200 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Not applicable 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
Safety equipment worn during desludging
Goggles 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 5
Latex gloves 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 5
Mask 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 11
Shoes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Uniform 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Not applicable 8 2 1 7 1 2 2 23
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 58
Table 6.4: Collection and Transportation
Zones CDZ HRZ HZ NEZ NWZ SZ WZ Total
Reasons for not discharging in the treatment plant
Procedures 1 0 0 6 2 1 0 10
Distance 5 6 3 1 5 3 6 29
Time 5 5 3 2 5 3 6 29
Faecal sludge collected by the desludging operators at almost all places was disposed in vacant lands
or water bodies. Though there is a state wide policy on use of clustered sewage treatment plants for
disposal it is not a common practise in smaller cities and towns where the STPs are far from the
catchment area or there is no strict enforcement of the law. The reasons for not dumping in the
designated sites was the time taken to travel to these sites resulting in lost opportunities and long
distances amounting to increased fuel costs. Nevertheless, it was observed at a lot of places that this
sludge was considered as a resource, rich in nutrients and minerals required for farming, the sludge
also conditioned the soil and increased its moisture retaining capability. Though, when enquired on the
willingness to pay for such products, they seemed to shy away from buying it from a market. A few
farmers did hint at getting the end product certified by an agricultural university to endorse its benefits.
In sum, the study has captured both insights and representative quantitative status of the current
situation across the state. It is recommended that the study be understood after carefully analysing its
vantage point of covering a selected few towns and cities across the state. To detail or design
region/city/town specific interventions, it is suggested that detailed local information be captured and
analysed.
AnnexuresAnnexure 1: Brief on Agro climatic zones 61
Annexure 2: Toilet number and location 65
Annexure 3: Containment 67
Annexure 4: Emptying and Transportation 85
Annexure 5: Reuse 101
Draft. To be Cited with Authors' Permission
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 61
Annexure 1: Brief on Agro climatic zones
A1.1. Cauvery Delta Zone It encompasses a total area of 24,943 sq. Km under major districts of Thanjavur, Tiruchirappalli,
Pudukottai, Cuddalore and Villipuram districts. It is a deltaic area with cauvery being a major river
flowing through the region. The terrain is plain with altitude varying between 6 to 250 m above MSL and
a gentle slope towards the east. The region receives high rainfall of 1192 mm. Temperatures in the
region vary between 38.6 0C in summers and 21 0C during winters. Table A1.1 below summaries the
geological properties across this region:
Table A5:Water Table, Water Quality and Soil Type in Cauvery Delta Zone
Water
table level
Winter: 1.6 – 2.6 m, below ground level (bgl)
Summer: 4.7 – 5.8 m, bgl
Water
quality 740 – 1340 micromhos/cm
Soil3
Red Loamy and Alluvium. The hydrological soil group ‘B’ with moderate infiltration
and moderate runoff potential predominant in this block to the extent of 87%. The
soil group ‘C’ with slow infiltration and moderate runoff potential covers about 12%
area of the block. Hydrological soil group ‘A’ with high infiltration and low runoff
potential constitute a very little area to the extent of 1%.
Source: Institute of Remote Sensing, Identification of Recharge areas Using Remote Sensing and GIS in
Tamil Nadu, Anna University, Chennai, 1998 – 1999
A1.2. North Eastern Zone It covers a total of 32,194 sq. km under districts of Chengalpattu, Thiruvallur, Kancheepuram, Vellore,
Thiruvanamalai, Villipuram, Cuddalore and Permabalur districts. The region can be further sub
classified under six geographical tracts; Coastal plains, hilly and mountainous area undulated with
hillocks, eastern ghats, central plateau, backwater, western ghats adjoining the plateau. The region
receives an average rainfall of 989 mm in a year, with temperatures varying between 40 0C in summers
to 21 0C in winters. A summary of the geological properties is tabulated below in Table A1.2
3 Soils are classified by the Natural Resource Conservation Service into four Hydrologic Soil Groups based on the soil's runoff potential. The four Hydrologic Soils Groups are A, B, C and D. Group A is sand, loamy sand or sandy loam types of soils. It has low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. They consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission. Group B is silt loam or loam. It has a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted and consists chiefly or moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. Group C soils are sandy clay loam. They have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine structure. Group D soils are clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay. This HSG has the highest runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface and shallow soils over nearly impervious material.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 62
Table A6: Water Table, Water Quality and Soil Type in North Eastern Zone of Tamil Nadu
Water table
level
Summer: 10.3 to 16.6 m, bgl Winter: 7.03 to 15.64
m, bgl
Water
quality4 1500 – 4000 micromhos/cm
Soil
Red sandy loam, clay loam and saline coastal alluvium.
Hydrological soil group ‘B’ with moderate infiltration and moderate runoff potential
constitute about more than half of the area of the block. The hydrological soil group
‘C’ with slow infiltration and moderate runoff potential covers to the tune of the little
more than one-third area of the block. Hydrological soil group ‘A’ with high infiltration
and low runoff potential covers the rest of the area.
Source: Institute of Remote Sensing, Identification of Recharge areas Using Remote Sensing and GIS in Tamil
Nadu, Anna University, Chennai, 1998 – 1999
A1.3. Western Zone It constitutes an area of 15,678 sq.km under Periyar, Coimbatore, Salem, Tiruchirappalli and Madurai
districts. The annual normal rainfall is about 653 mm with Cauvery, Bhavani and Amaravati as major
rivers. The region has undulating topography sloping towards east with peaks ranging from 1000 – 2700
m above MSL. Temperatures vary between 42 0C in summers to 16 0C in winters. The climatic zone
ranges from semi-arid to sub humid with frequent occurrence of drought. A summary of the geological
properties is tabulated below in TableA1.3.
Table A7: Water Table, Water Quality and Soil Type in Western Zone of Tamil Nadu
Water table
level
Summer: 6.27 to 11.5 m, bgl Winter: 1.61 to 8.07
m, bgl
Water
quality 1620 – 1750 micromhos/cm
Soil
Red loamy and Black. The hydrological soil group ‘B’ with moderate infiltration and
moderate runoff potential covers about three fourth area of the block. Hydrological
soil group ‘A’ with high rate of infiltration occurs a little less than one-fifth area. of
the block. The rest of the area comes under soil group ‘C’ with slow rate of
infiltration.
Source: Institute of Remote Sensing, Identification of Recharge areas Using Remote Sensing and GIS in Tamil
Nadu, Anna University, Chennai, 1998 – 1999
A1.4. North western zone It constitutes an area of 16150 sq. km under Dharmapuri, Salem and Namakkal districts. This zone
experiences frequent drought with climate varying between semi-arid and sub humid. The annual rainfall
ranges between 560 -1080 mm and temperatures between 42 0C in summers to 10 0C in winters. The
region has undulating topography with peaks ranging between 600 to 1000 m above MSL. A summary
of the geological properties is tabulated below in Table A1.4.
4 Water Quality is tested for presence for nitrate and phosphate which indicates wastewater
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 63
Table A8: Water Table, Water Quality And Soil Type In North Western Zone Of Tamil Nadu
Water table
level
Summer: 4.4 to 19 m, bgl
Winter: 2.9 to 9.5 m, bgl
Water quality 930 – 1375 micromhos/cm
Soil
Non calcareous red, non-calcareous brown, calcareous black.
The hydrological soil group ‘D’ with very slow rate of infiltration covers more
than half of the block area. The hydrological soil group ‘C’ with slow rate of
infiltration covers about one third of the area. The hydrological soil groups ‘B’
and ‘A’ with moderate and high rate of infiltration cover the remaining portion of
the area respectively.
Source: Institute of Remote Sensing, Identification of Recharge areas Using Remote Sensing and GIS in
Tamil Nadu, Anna University, Chennai, 1998 – 1999
A1.5. High Altitude zone:
It comprises an area of 2549 sq. km and covers the Nilgiris, the Yelgiri, the Anamalai and the Palani
hills. The rainfall varies between 1000 to 5000 mm and the temperatures between 24 0C in summers
to 7 0C in winters. A summary of the geological properties is tabulated below in Table A1.5.
Table A9: Water Table, Water Quality and Soil Type in High Altitude Zones of Tamil Nadu
Water table level Summer: 2 to 3 m, bgl Winter: 1.5 to 2.7 m, bgl
Water quality 170 – 660 micromhos/cm
Soil Laterite
Source: Institute of Remote Sensing, Identification of Recharge areas Using Remote Sensing and GIS in
Tamil Nadu, Anna University, Chennai, 1998 – 1999
A1.6. Southern Zone: It constitutes an area of 36655 sq. km in the districts of Ramanathapuram, Tuticorin, Tirunelveli,
Virudunagar, Sivagangai Madurai and Pudukkottai. The zone comprises of flat plains and intermittent
hills with peaks of 700 m high. The average rainfall in the zone is 876 mm with temperatures varying
between 37.5 0C in summers to 20 0C in winters. A summary of the geological properties is tabulated
below in Table A1.6.
Table A10 : Water Table, Water Quality and Soil Type in Southern Zone of Tamil Nadu
Water table
level Summer: Around 7.75 m, bgl Winter: 1.39 m, bgl
Water
quality 540 - 11000 micromhos/cm
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 64
Table A10 : Water Table, Water Quality and Soil Type in Southern Zone of Tamil Nadu
Soil
Coastal alluvium, black, red sandy soil, deep red soil Hydrological soil group ‘A’
covers an area upto 86.33 sq.km that is 29.91 % of total area. Hydrological soil
group ‘B’ covers an area upto 50.84 sq.km that is 17.62 % of total area.
Hydrological soil group ‘C’ covers an area upto 54.13 sq.km which is 18.75 % of
total area and Hydrological soil group ‘D’ which covers an area upto 97.07 sq.km
which is 33.72 % of total area.
Source: Institute of Remote Sensing, Identification of Recharge areas Using Remote Sensing and GIS in
Tamil Nadu, Anna University, Chennai, 1998 – 1999
A1.7. High Rainfall zone: It covers 1684 sq.km encompassing the entire districts of Kanyakumari. The average rainfall is around
1456 mm, with temperatures varying between 37 0C in summers to 24 0C in winters. The climate is
sub humid with heavy influences from south west and north east monsoons. A summary of the
geological properties is depicted below in Table A1.7.
Table A11: Water Table, Water Quality and Soil Type in High Rainfall Areas of Tamil Nadu
Water
table level Summer: 19 – 36 m, bgl Winter: 19 – 35 m, bgl
Water
quality 500 - 1000 micromhos/cm
Soil
Saline coastal alluvium, deep red loam.
The hydrological soil group ‘B’ with moderate infiltration and moderate runoff
potential covers 52% area of the block. The remaining area of 48% is constituted by
soil group ‘C’ with slow infiltration and moderate runoff potential.
Source: Institute of Remote Sensing, Identification of Recharge areas Using Remote Sensing and GIS in
Tamil Nadu, Anna University, Chennai, 1998 – 1999
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 65
Annexure 2: Toilet number and location
Table A12: Number of Toilets and location
Where is the toilet located in the house How many toilets are there in the house? Total
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Front side of the house
Zone type
Cauvery Delta Zone 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3
High Rainfall Zone 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 8
Hilly Zone 0 26 1 2 0 0 1 30
North Eastern Zone 0 19 4 1 0 0 0 24
North Western Zone 1 25 2 2 1 1 0 32
Southern Zone 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 10
Western Zone 0 24 14 3 1 2 0 44
Total 1 106 25 10 5 3 1 151
Outside the house bound
Zone type
Cauvery Delta Zone 12 3 0 15
High Rainfall Zone 3 0 0 3
Hilly Zone 3 0 0 3
North Eastern Zone 8 5 0
North Western Zone 6 1 0 7
Southern Zone 4 2 0 6
Western Zone 1 0 1 2
Total 37 11 1 49
Rear side of the house
Zone type
Cauvery Delta Zone 1 28 15 1 2 0 0 47
High Rainfall Zone 0 23 15 5 2 0 0 45
Hilly Zone 0 26 5 1 0 1 0 33
North Eastern Zone 0 8 9 2 1 1 0 21
North Western Zone 1 18 12 1 1 1 1 35
Southern Zone 0 31 11 2 5 0 0 49
Western Zone 0 17 10 1 1 0 0 29
Total 2 151 77 13 12 3 1 259
Within the house boundary
Zone type
Cauvery Delta Zone 0 8 13 2 1 1 25
High Rainfall Zone 0 11 16 5 1 1 34
Hilly Zone 0 19 4 1 0 0 24
North Eastern Zone 1 13 12 2 4 0 32
North Western Zone 0 10 2 4 0 0 16
Southern Zone 0 16 7 0 2 0
Western Zone 0 7 4 1 2 1 25
Total 1 84 58 15 10 3 171
Total
Zone type
Cauvery Delta Zone 1 50 32 3 3 1 0 90
High Rainfall Zone 0 40 33 10 6 1 0 90
Hilly Zone 0 74 10 4 0 1 1 90
North Eastern Zone 1 48 30 5 5 1 0 90
North Western Zone 2 59 17 7 2 2 1 90
Southern Zone 0 58 21 4 7 0 0 90
Western Zone 0 49 28 5 4 4 0 90
Total 4 378 171 38 27 10 2 630
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 67
Annexure 3: Containment
A3.1. Containment description zone wise
A3.1.1. West Zone (WZ)
75 households out of total of 90 total households depends upon septic tanks for disposal of the black
water. 14 households depend upon concrete lined single pit and 1 household depends on concrete
made ring pit for disposal of black water. In WZ, on an avg. pits have 6 no. of precast rings of height
1.5ft each and 4ft in dia. On an avg. depth of the pits in WZ is 6ft. Out of the 2 respondents, 1 household
had vent pipe with height of 3m. Out of the 2 respondents, 1 household had its pit located below the
toilet while other had it located at a distance of 1m. In both the cases pit cover has been fixed to the pit.
Out of the 2 respondents, 1 household had its pit sealed at the bottom. There were no openings provided
in pit walls. One household had overflow pipe attached to the pit to discharging into storm water drain.
In WZ, on an average, dimensions of septic tank were L x B x D as 2.27m X 1.4m X 2.6m respectively.
50 septic tanks had partition walls out of which 32 had its partition walls placed at center of the tank
whereas 37 of which had its partition wall placed at 1/3rd distance from one side of the tank. 69 of the
households had vent pipe for their septic tanks with 3m-height pipe. 82 septic tanks were lined at bottom.
36 septic tanks were located below toilets whereas in other cases it was located at an avg. distance of
3 m from the toilet. 76 septic tanks didn’t have manhole covers. Only 1 septic tank was connected to
soak pit. Breakages/ leakages were evident 1 septic tank and on inlet/outlet pipe of 23 septic tanks.
In WZ, septic tanks are located at on an avg. of 7-8 m distance from nearest main road. 36 households
had width of roads more than 3 m, whereas 42 of them had 2-3 m of width, which makes it, difficult for
desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations and 9 households had less than 2m of width which
makes it literally impossible for desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations.
A3.1.2. High Rainfall Zone (HRZ)
In HRZ, 48 out of 90 covered households depends on unlined single pit, 17 households depend on
concrete lined pit, 6 households depend on concrete made ring pit, 10 households depend on brick
lined single pit containment system, 9 out of 90 covered households depends upon septic tank and 22
households depends upon other systems like soak pit etc. for disposal of black water. In HRZ, on an
avg. pits have 7 no. of rings of height 1- 1.5ft each and 4ft in dia. On an avg. depth of the pits in HRZ is
10ft. 53 households had vent pipe with height of 2-3m. 11 households had its pit located below the toilet
while others had it located at a distance of 3m. 74 households had their pit cover cemented to the pit, 3
households had cover temporarily placed whereas 2 households had no cover on the pits. 11
households had its pit walls made up of precast rings and 56 households had its pit walls made up of
stone/ rubble masonry. 5 households had its pit sealed at the bottom. 72 pits had no openings provided
in pit walls and 1 household had overflow pipe attached to the pit for discharging into storm water drain.
In HRZ, on average, dimensions of septic tank are L x B x D as 2m X 1.7m X 3.5m respectively. Only 4
septic tanks had partition walls out of which 2 had its partition walls placed at center of the tank whereas
2 of which had its partition wall placed at 1/3rd distance from one side of the tank. 7 of the households
had vent pipe for their septic tanks with 3m-height pipe. 6 septic tanks were lined at bottom. Septic tanks
were located at an avg. distance of 2.7m from the toilet.
In HRZ, septic tanks are located at on an avg. of 10m distances from nearest main road. In the
households depending upon pits, 66 of the pits were constructed at 10m distances from where
desludging vehicle can be placed; in 10 households this distance was 10-20m and 20-30m for 5
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 68
households. 6 households had width of roads more than 3m, whereas 2 of them had 2-3m of width,
which makes it difficult for desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations.
A3.1.3. Hilly Zone (HZ)
In HZ, 27 out of 90 covered households
depends on unlined single pit, 21 households
depend on concrete lined pit, 23 households
depend on concrete made ring pit, 18 out of
90 covered households depends upon septic
tank and 1 household depends upon other
systems for disposal of black water.
In hilly zone, on an average pits have 6 no. of
rings of height 1ft each and 3-4ft in dia. On
an avg. depth of the pits in HZ is 12ft. 47
households had vent pipe with height of 2-
3m. 18 households had its pit located below
the toilet while others had it located at a
distance of 3m. 61 households had their pit
cover cemented to the pit making it difficult to
desludge. 55 households had its pit walls
made up of precast rings, 2 households have
its pit walls made up of bricks and 4 households had its pit walls made up of stone/ rubble masonry. 12
households had its pit sealed at the bottom. 45 pits had no openings provided in pit walls.
In HZ, on an average, dimensions of septic tank are L x B x D as 2.1m X 1.6m X 2.5m respectively.
Only 1 septic tank had partition wall. 23 of the households had vent pipe for their septic tanks with 3m-
height pipe. 18 septic tanks were lined at bottom. 3 septic tanks were located below toilets whereas in
other cases it was located at an avg. distance of 5m from the toilet. 1 septic tank was connected to
septic tank. Figure A3.1 shows the septic tank constructed in a hilly zone.
In HZ, septic tanks are located at on an avg. of 20m distances from nearest main road. In the households
depending upon pits, 16 of the pits were constructed at 10m distance from where desludging vehicle
can be placed, in 8 households this distance was 10-20m, 20-30m for 6 households, 30-50m for 5
households and more than 50m for 25 households. 9 households had width of roads more than 3m,
whereas 12 of them had 2-3m of width, which makes it, difficult for desludging vehicle to carry out
desludging operations and 15 households had less than 2m of width which makes it literally impossible
for desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations.
A3.1.4. North Eastern Zone (NEZ)
In NEZ, 2 out of 90 covered households depends on unlined single pit, 13 households depend on
concrete lined pit, 3 households depend on concrete made ring pit and 71 out of 90 covered households
depends upon septic tank for disposal of black water. Figure 10 shows the pictures of the completely
lined pits.
In NEZ, on an avg. pits have 6 no. of rings of height 1ft each and 3ft in dia. On an avg. depth of the pits
in NEZ is 5ft. 5 households had vent pipe with height of 3m. 1 household had its pit located below the
Figure A3. 1: Septic Tank Constructed in a Hilly Zone of Tamil Nadu
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 69
toilet while others had it located at a distance of 5m. 4 households had their pit cover cemented to the
pit making it difficult to desludge and in 3 households pit cover was temporarily placed. 6 households
had its pit walls made up of precast rings and 1 household has its pit walls made up of bricks. 1
household had its pit sealed at the bottom. 4 pits had no openings provided in pit walls.
In NEZ, on an average, dimensions of septic tank are LxBxD as 2.3m X 1.7m X 2.6m respectively. 26
septic tanks had partition wall. 25 of septic tanks had its partition walls placed at center of the tank
whereas 1 of which had its partition wall placed at 1/3rd distance from one side of the tank. 75 of the
households had vent pipe for their septic tanks with 3m-height pipe. 51 septic tanks were lined at bottom.
24 septic tanks were located below toilets whereas in other cases it was located at an avg. distance of
4m from the toilet. 1 septic tank was connected to soak pit. Breakages/leakages were evident on 1
septic tank.
In NEZ, septic tanks are located at on an avg. of 7m distances from nearest main road. In the
households depending upon pits, 3 of the pits were constructed at 10m distances from where
desludging vehicle can be placed while in 4 households this distance was 10-20m. 52 households had
width of roads more than 3m, whereas 15 of them had 2-3m of width, which makes it, difficult for
desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations and 1 household had less than 2m of width which
makes it literally impossible for desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations.
A3.1.5. North Western Zone (NWZ)
In NWZ, 1 out of 90 covered household depends
on unlined single pit, 14 households depend on
concrete lined pit, 7 households depend on
concrete made ring pit, 8 households depend on
brick lined single pit containment system and 60
out of 90 covered households depends upon
septic tank for disposal of black water.
In NWZ, on an avg. pits have 6 no. of rings of
height 1ft each and 4ft in dia. On an avg. depth of
the pits in NWZ is 8.5ft. 8 households had vent
pipe with height of 3-4m, as shown in Figure 3.10.
5 households had its pit located below the toilet
while others had it located at a distance of 1m. 10
households had their pit cover cemented to the pit
making it difficult to desludge. 1 household has its
pit walls made up of bricks. 2 pits had over flow
discharge pipe discharging into storm water drain. 8 pits had no openings provided in pit walls.
In NWZ, on an average, dimensions of septic tank are LxBxD as 2.4m X 1.7m X 2.6m respectively. 38
septic tanks had partition wall. 33 of septic tanks had its partition walls placed at center of the tank
whereas 6 of which had its partition wall placed at 1/3rd distance from one side of the tank. 68 of the
households had vent pipe for their septic tanks with 3m-height pipe. 73 septic tanks were lined at bottom.
45 septic tanks were located below toilets whereas in other cases it was located at an avg. distance of
4.5m from the toilet. 2 septic tanks were connected to soak pit. Breakages/leakages were evident on
inlet /outlet pipe of 10 septic tanks.
In NWZ, septic tanks are located at on an avg. of 11m distances from nearest main road. In the
households depending upon pits, 5 of the pits were constructed at 10m distance from where desludging
Figure A3. 2: Ventilation Improved Pit as
Observed in One of the Studied Towns
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 70
vehicle can be placed while in 3 households this distance was 10-20m, 30-50m for 1 household and
more than 50m for 1 household. 38 households had width of roads more than 3m, whereas 40 of them
had 2-3m of width, which makes it, difficult for desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations
and 2 households had less than 2m of width which makes it literally impossible for desludging vehicle
to carry out desludging operations.
A3.1.6. South Zone (SZ)
In SZ, 74 households out of total of 90 total households depends upon septic tanks for disposal of the
black water. 9 households depend upon concrete lined single pit and 7 households depend on concrete
made ring pit for disposal of black water.
In SZ, on an average, pits have 7 no. of rings of height 1ft each and 2ft in dia. On an avg. depth of the
pits in SZ is 6.8ft. 8 households had vent pipe with height of 2-3m. 2 households had its pit located
below the toilet while others had it located at a distance of 1-2m. 8 households had their pit cover
cemented to the pit making it difficult to desludge, in 3 households pit cver was temporarily placed and
1 household had no pit cover. 12 households have its pit walls made up of precast rings. 4 households
had pit sealed at bottom. 1 pit had overflow discharge outlet discharging into storm water drain.
In SZ, on an average, dimensions of septic tank are LxBxD as 2.4m X 1.4m X 2.4m respectively. 25
septic tanks had partition wall. 16 of septic tanks had its partition walls placed at center of the tank
whereas 11 of which had its partition wall placed at 1/3rd distance from one side of the tank. 71 of the
households had vent pipe for their septic tanks with 3 m-height pipes. 71 septic tanks were lined at
bottom. 38 septic tanks were located below toilets whereas in other cases it was located at an avg.
distance of 3m from the toilet. 4 septic tanks were connected to soak pit. Breakages/leakages were
evident on inlet /outlet pipe of 1 septic tank.
In SZ, septic tanks are located at on an avg. of 7m distances from nearest main road. In the households
depending upon pits, 10 of the pits were constructed at 10m distances from where desludging vehicle
can be placed while in 20 households this distance was 10-20m. 36 households had width of roads
more than 3m, whereas 36 of them had 2-3m of width, which makes it, difficult for desludging vehicle to
carry out desludging operations and 4 households had less than 2m of width which makes it literally
impossible for desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations.
A3.1.7. Cauvery Delta Zone (CDZ)
In CDZ, 78 households out of total of 90 total households depends upon septic tanks for disposal of the
black water. 2 households depend upon unlined single pit and 9 households depend on concrete made
ring pit for disposal of black water.
In CDZ, on an avg. pits have 7 no. of rings of height 0.5ft each and 2ft in dia. On an avg. depth of the
pits in CDZ is 6ft. 11 households had vent pipe with height of 3m. 12 households had their pit cover
cemented to the pit making it difficult to desludge. 12 households have its pit walls made up of precast
rings.
In CDZ, on an average, dimensions of septic tank are LxBxD as 2.5m X 1.8m X 2.6m respectively. 25
septic tanks had partition wall. 22 of septic tanks had its partition walls placed at center of the tank
whereas 6 of which had its partition wall placed at 1/3rd distance from one side of the tank. 69 of the
households had vent pipe for their septic tanks with 2-3m height pipe. 36 septic tanks were lined at
bottom. 12 septic tanks were located below toilets whereas in other cases it was located at an avg.
distance of 3m from the toilet. 6 septic tanks were connected to soak pit. Breakages/leakages were
evident on septic tank walls and inlet /outlet pipe of 1 septic tank.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 71
In CDZ, septic tanks are located at on an avg. of 14.5m distances from nearest main road. In the
households depending upon pits, 2 of the pits were constructed at 10m distances from where desludging
vehicle can be placed while in 3 households this distance was 10-20m, 20-30m for 5 households and
30-50m for 1 household. 34 households had width of roads more than 3m, whereas 34 of them had 2-
3m of width, which makes it, difficult for desludging vehicle to carry out desludging operations and 2
households had less than 2m of width which makes it literally impossible for desludging vehicle to carry
out desludging operations.
A3.2. Under Construction Containment Units A part of the study involved assessing under construction containment units to provide a dissected view
of the existing construction practices of containment units adopted at the household level.
A3.2.1. Hilly Zone (HZ)
Containment designed for only one house for 8 out of 9 covered households. Only in one case
containment is designed for 2 houses. Clayey soil is found in 5 cases along with silt and presence of
rocks found in 4 cases. Red soil also found in 2 cases. Excavation is done using earthwork machinery
in 5 households and done manually in 4 households. Lined septic tank is constructed in all the 9
households covered. 3 households had outlet pipe from septic tank connected to storm water drain
whereas 6 households didn’t had and overflow discharge outlet pipe from septic tank. Average size of
septic tank is L X B X D as 2.5m X 1.1m X 2.4m. 3 septic tanks were single chambered, 4 septic tanks
were 2 chambered and 2 septic tanks were 3 chambered. For 4 septic tanks partition wall was
constructed in the center of the tank whereas for 2 septic tanks partition wall was constructed at 1/3rd
distance from tank wall. 8 septic tanks had vent pipe with 3-4m height. All the 9 septic tanks covered
were lined at bottom. 3 out of 9 septic tanks are constructed below the toilet.5 out of 9 septic tanks are
constructed near the wells with less than 10m distance between them. Septic tanks in 8 out 9
households were constructed at a distance of less than 10m where a desludging vehicle can be paced.
3 out of 9 households had connecting road of the width 2-3m where desludging can be difficult whereas
remaining 6 households had road width of more than 3m.
A3.2.2. High Rainfall Zone (HRZ)
Containment designed for only one house for 6 out of 9 covered households. Only in one case
containment is designed for 2 houses. Clayey soil is found in 3 cases, silt in found in 4 cases, black soil
found in 1 case and sandy soil found in 1 case. Excavation is done using earthwork machinery in 5
households and done manually in 4 households. Single pit is constructed in 7 out of 9 households
covered whereas Lined septic tank is constructed in remaining 2 households. 3 households had outlet
pipe connected to storm water drain, 1 households had over flow discharge outlet pipe from septic tank
connected to soak pit whereas 5 households didn’t had and overflow discharge outlet pipe. Average
size of septic tank is L X B X D as 3.2m X 1.4m X 1.75m. Both the septic tanks were 3 chambered. For
both the septic tanks partition wall was constructed at 1/3rd distance from tank wall. Both septic tanks
had vent pipe with 2 and 3m heights each. Both the septic tanks are lined at bottom. 1 septic tank is
connected to soak pit. Septic tanks both the households were constructed at a distance of less than
10m where a desludging vehicle can be paced. 1 household had connecting road of the width 2-3m
where desludging can be difficult whereas other household had road width of more than 3m.
In households where pits are being constructed, diameter of pits very from 3ft to 6ft. depth of the pit is
10ft. out of the 7 households having pit, 1 pit has fully plastered walls. 4 out 7 households have vent
pipe of 3m average heights. 2 pits are located below the toilets. All the pits are located at a distance of
10m from where they can be desludged.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 72
A3.2.3. Hilly Zone (HZ)
In HZ it is observed that containment systems are shared between 2 or more households. Containment
designed for only one house for 4 out of 9 covered households, in 3 households covered septic tanks
were connected to 2 houses in each with a special case were persons dependent on one septic tank
were 100 and in 2 households covered septic tanks were connected to 3 houses in each. Clayey soil is
found in 4 cases and red soil is found in 8 cases. Excavation is done using earthwork machinery in 2
households and done manually in 7 households. Single pit is constructed in 6 out of 9 households
covered whereas Lined septic tank is constructed in remaining 3 households. 1 household had over
flow discharge outlet pipe from septic tank connected to soak pit whereas 8 households didn’t had and
overflow discharge outlet pipe. Average size of septic tank is L X B X D as 3m X 1.2m X 2.4m and is
single chambered. Dimensions of septic tank, which has 100 users dependency, are 7.6m X 2.7m X
3.6m with 3chambered tank. All 3 septic tanks had vent pipe with around 5m heights. 1 out of 3 septic
tank was not lined at bottom. Septic tanks in 2 out of 3 households were constructed at a distance of
more than 10m where a desludging vehicle can be paced. 2 households had connecting road of the
width 2-3m where desludging can be difficult whereas 1 household had road width of more than 3m.
In households where pits are being constructed, diameter of pits rings very from 3ft to 4ft, width of each
ring is 1ft. depth of the pit is 8.5ft. out of the 6 households having pit, 2 pit has fully plastered walls. All
the 6 households have vent pipe of 3m average heights. 4 pits are located at a distance of 30-50m and
2 households are located at a distance of 20-30m from where they can be desludged.
A3.2.4. North Eastern Zone (NEZ)
In NEZ, containment designed for only one house for 4 out of 10 covered households, in 4 households
covered septic tanks were connected to 2 houses each. Clayey soil is found in 9 cases, silt in 1 case
with presence of rocks and hard soil is found in 1 case. Excavation is done using earthwork machinery
in 3 households and done manually in 8 households. Lined septic tank is constructed in 8 out of 10
households covered whereas unlined septic tank is constructed in 2 households. 1 household had over
flow discharge outlet pipe from septic tank connected to soak pit, 2 septic tanks had their overflow
discharge pipe let into storm water drain whereas 7 households did not have an overflow discharge
outlet pipe. Average size of septic tank is L X B X D as 1.6m X 1.4m X 1.4m. only 2 septic tanks have
partition walls and both are 2 chambered. All septic tanks had vent pipe with around 3-4m height. 2 out
of 10 septic tank was not lined at bottom. One septic tank is constructed below the toilet. Septic tanks
in all the households were constructed at a distance of less than 10m where a desludging vehicle can
be paced. 3 households had connecting road of the width 2-3m where desludging can be difficult
whereas 7 households had road width of more than 3m.
A3.2.5. North Western Zone (NWZ)
In NWZ, Containment designed for only one house for 9 out of 10 covered households. Only in one
case containment is designed for 2 houses. Clayey soil is found in 2 cases, silt in 5 case, presence of
rocks in 1 case and red soil is found in 2 cases. Excavation is done using earthwork machinery in 6
households and done manually in 4 households. Lined septic tank is constructed all the 10 households
covered. 1 household had over flow discharge outlet pipe from septic tank connected to soak pit, 2
septic tanks had their overflow discharge pipe let into storm water drain, 3 septic tanks had their overflow
discharge pipe percolated into ground whereas 4 households didn’t had and overflow discharge outlet
pipe. Average size of septic tank is L X B X D as 2.4m X 1.6m X 2.4m. only 5 septic tanks have partition
walls and 3 septic tanks were 2 chambered as shown in Figure 3.24, whereas 2 septic tanks were 3
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 73
chambered. 8 septic tanks had
vent pipe with around 4m heights.
1 septic tank was not lined at
bottom. 3 septic tanks were
constructed below the toilet. Septic
tanks in all the households were
constructed at a distance of less
than 10m where a desludging
vehicle can be paced. 4
households had connecting road
of the width 2-3m where
desludging can be difficult
whereas 5 households had road
width of more than 3m.
A3.2.6. South Zone (SZ)
In SZ, Containment designed for
only one house for 7 out of 11
covered households, in 2
households containment system is designed for 2 households. Only in one case containment is
designed for 4 houses. Clayey soil is found in 4 cases, silt in 3 cases, loamy soil in 1 case and red soil
is found in 2 cases. Excavation is done using earthwork machinery in 3 households and done manually
in 8 households. Lined septic tank is constructed for all the 11 households covered. 2 households had
over flow discharge outlet pipe from septic tank connected to soak pit whereas 9 households didn’t had
and overflow discharge outlet pipe. Average size of septic tank is L X B X D as 1.8m X 1.1m X 1.7m. 4
septic tanks have partition walls. All septic tanks had vent pipe with around 3m heights. All septic tanks
were lined at bottom. 3 septic tanks were constructed below the toilet. Septic tanks in all the households
were constructed at a distance of less than 10m where a desludging vehicle can be paced. 1 household
had connecting road of width less than 2m making it impossible to desludge, 3 households had
connecting road of the width 2-3m where desludging can be difficult whereas 6 households had road
width of more than 3m.
A3.2.7. Cauvery Delta Zone (CDZ)
In CDZ, Containment designed for only one house for 5 out of 7 covered households. Only in one case
containment is designed for 4 houses. Clayey soil is found in 1 case, silt in 3 cases, loamy soil in 3
cases and gravel and mud is found in 3 cases. Excavation is done using earthwork machinery in 2
households and done manually in 5 households. Lined septic tank is constructed for 6 households and
unlined septic tank is constructed for 1 household. 3 households had over flow discharge outlet pipe
from septic tank connected to soak pit whereas 4 households didn’t had and overflow discharge outlet
pipe. Average size of septic tank is L X B X D as 2.6m X 1.2m X 2m. 2 septic tanks have partition walls.
All septic tanks had vent pipe with around 3m heights. 2 septic tanks were not lined at bottom. Septic
tanks in all the households were constructed at a distance of less than 10m where a desludging vehicle
can be paced. 1 household had connecting road of width less than 2m making it impossible to desludge,
3 households had connecting road of the width 2-3m where desludging can be difficult whereas 2
households had road width of more than 3m. Figure 3.5 shows a septic tank constructed on an elevated
base.
Figure A3. 3: Under Construction Two Chamber Septic Tank
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 74
A3.3. Enabling Environment – Masons This section covers the assessment
carried out on masons to understand the
decision-making process involved in
building a toilet and its related
components. As part of this study 12
masons where interviewed in the each of
the clusters, all have a variety of
experience ranging from 20 – 60 years in
constructing toilets. Decisions related to
size of the toilets, type of the pan and
location of the toilets were said to be
made primarily by the household
member, while the type and design of the
containment unit including its
dimensioning is done by the mason or an
engineer in charge of the construction
process. This decision-making was
mostly influenced by the area availability
and the ability to pay by the household.
A3.3.1. West Zone
Out of 11 masons covered, 5 masons felt that household members take the decisions for toilet
dimensions, 4 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion and 2 masons were of
the opinion that engineer gives toilet dimensions. Average area of toilet is 2.5 sq.m. All the masons
agreed that they have been using
squatting pan and western commode. 9
masons agreed of providing 1 ventilation
opening whereas 2 masons said that 2
openings are provided. All the masons
agreed that bricks are used as materials of
construction. Out of 11 masons covered, 8
masons felt that household members
decide the toilet location, 3 masons were
of the opinion that they themselves take
the opinion on toilet location, 1 mason
were of the opinion that engineer decides
the location and 1 mason felt that toilet
location is decided as per vastu. Out of 11
masons covered, 6 masons felt that
household members decide the type of
containment system, 4 masons were of
the opinion that they themselves take the
opinion on type of containment system
and 1 masons were of the opinion that
engineer decides the type of containment system.
All the masons said that only septic tanks are generally preferred. Average dimensions of septic tanks
built are as 2.3m X1.2m X 2.1m (L x B x D). All masons said that septic tanks that they construct are 2
chambered. 10 out of 11 masons said that they only plaster the septic tanks at bottom whereas 1 mason
said that he use water proofing plaster. 6 masons said that overflow outlet of septic tank should be
Figure A3. 4: Toilet and Septic Tank Under
Construction at an Elevated Base
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Figure A3. 5: Toilet Building Mason Interview
Conducted by our Team Member at the House
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 75
connected to storm water drain, 2 masons said it should be connected to soak pit and 2 masons said
there shouldn’t be any overflow outlets. Figure 3.6 gives the process of interview that was conducted.
Table 3.22 highlights the resources required to build a toilet with septic tank for a household of 5
members.
Table A3. 1: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Septic Tank for a Household of 5 Members in Western Zone Of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 21,000 Rs. 50,000
Cost of labor Rs. 4,500 Rs. 20,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs. 40,000
Time taken for construction 2 days 12 days
Area requirement 16 sq.ft 100sq.ft.
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
As per masons’ study, only single pits are constructed which are circular in shape in WZ. Average
diameter of the pit is 0.7m. Depth of pit varies from 0.9m to 2.4m. 3 masons said that pits are lined and
constructed using concrete rings. The below Table 3.41 highlights the resources required to build a
toilet with pits for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 2: Resources Required to Build a Toilet With Pits for a Household Of 5 Members in Western Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 10,000 Rs.15,000
Cost of labor Rs. 3,000 Rs. 5,000
Total cost Rs. 8,000 Rs.15,000
Time taken for construction 1 day 3 days
Area requirement 3ft x 4ft -
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
All the masons agreed that they learnt about design of toilets and containment system at their job training
and observation. 6 masons had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques. When
inquired about willingness to attend any of masons training programs, 9 masons agreed whereas 2
masons said they are not interested in any such training as they know enough in this field.
A3.3.2. High Rainfall Zone
Out of 11 masons covered, 3 masons felt that household members take the decisions for toilet
dimensions, 2 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion and 2 masons were of
the opinion that engineer gives toilet dimensions. Figure 3.27 shows the interview conducted by our
team member. Average area of toilet is 2.21 sq.m. All the masons agreed that they have been using
squatting pan and 7 masons agreed that they have been using western commode. 8 masons agreed of
providing 1 ventilation opening whereas 1 mason said that 2 openings are provided. 7 masons agreed
that bricks are used as materials of construction 2 masons agreed with stone blocks and concrete
blocks. Out of 11 masons covered, 5 masons felt that household members decide the toilet location and
4 masons were of the opinion that engineer decides the location. Out of 11 masons covered, 2
Figure A3. 6: Toilet Construction Mason Study
Interview Conducted by our Team Member
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 76
masons felt that household members
decide the type of containment system, 2
masons were of the opinion that they
themselves take the opinion on type of
containment system and 5 masons were of
the opinion that engineer decides the type
of containment system.
6 masons said that single pit is preferred
whereas 3 masons said that septic tanks
are generally preferred. Average
dimensions of septic tanks built: L x B x D
as 2.5m X1.4m X 1.9m. All masons said
that septic tanks, which they construct, are
many chambered. 3 out of 11 masons said
that they only plaster the septic tanks at
bottom whereas 1 mason said that he use
water proofing plaster. 1 mason said that
overflow outlet of septic tank should be connected to storm water drain, 1 mason said it should be
connected to soak pit, 1 mason said that it should be connected to ditch and 1 mason said there
shouldn’t be any overflow outlet. The below table highlights the resources required to build a toilet with
septic tank for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 3: Resources Required for Building a Toilet with Septic Tank for a Household of 5
Members in High Rainfall Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 25,000 Rs.30,000
Cost of labor Rs. 15,000 Rs. 25,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs.60,000
Time taken for construction 3 days 8 days
Area requirement 40 sq. ft 100 sq ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
As per the study, 7 masons agreed with single pits and one mason agreed with twin pit that are
constructed circular in shape. Average diameter of the pit is 1.2m. Average depth of pit is 2.9m. 7
masons said that pits are lined and constructed using concrete rings. The below table highlights the
resources required to build a toilet with pits for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 4: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Pits for a Household of 5 Members in
High Rainfall Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 5,000 Rs.50,000
Cost of labor Rs. 2,500 Rs.15,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs. 20,000
Time taken for construction 1 day 7 days
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 77
Table A3. 4: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Pits for a Household of 5 Members in
High Rainfall Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Area requirement 30 sq. ft 100 sq. ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
All the masons agreed that they learnt about design of toilets and containment system at their job
training and observation. Only 1 mason had heard about training programs on toilet construction
techniques. When inquired about willingness to attend any of masons training programs, 6 masons
agreed whereas 3 masons said they are not interested in any such training, as they know enough in
this field.
A3.3.3. Hilly Zone
Out of 9 masons covered, 2 masons felt that
household members take the decisions for
toilet dimensions, 4 masons were of the
opinion that they themselves take the
opinion and 5 masons were of the opinion
that engineer gives toilet dimensions.
Average area of toilet is 1.56 sq.m. 9
masons agreed that they have been using
squatting pan and 8 masons agreed that
they have been using western commode. 8
masons agreed of providing 1 ventilation
opening whereas 1 mason said that 2
openings are provided. 7 masons agreed
that bricks are used as materials of
construction 2 masons agreed with stone
blocks and concrete blocks. Out of 11
masons covered, 5 masons felt that
household members decide the toilet
location, 2 masons were of the opinion that
they themselves take the opinion on toilet
location and 3 masons were of the opinion that engineer decides the location. Out of 11 masons
covered, 6 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion on type of containment
system and 4 masons were of the opinion that engineer decides the type of containment system. Figure
3.28 shows the picture drawn by the mason while explaining about toilet construction.
5 masons said that single pit is preferred whereas 4 masons said that septic tanks are generally
preferred. Average dimensions of septic tanks built: L x B x D as 1.8m X1.3m X 2.8m. 2 masons said
that septic tanks, which they construct, are 2 chambered. 2 out of 11 masons said that they only plaster
the septic tanks at bottom whereas 2 masons said that septic tanks are not lined at bottom. 3 masons
said that overflow outlet of septic tank should be connected to soak pit, and 1 mason said there shouldn’t
be any overflow outlet. The below Table 3.26 highlights the resources required to build a toilet with septic
tank for a household of 5 members.
Figure A3. 7: Diagrammatic Explanation Provided
by the Mason while Conducting the Interview
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 78
Table A3. 5: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Septic Tank for a Household of 5
Members in Hilly Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 6,000 Rs. 50,000
Cost of labor Rs. 3,000 Rs. 15,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs. 10,000
Time taken for construction 2 days 7 days
Area requirement 24 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
As per the study, 5 masons agreed with single pits and one mason agreed with twin pit that are
constructed circular in shape. Average diameter of the pit is 1.15m. Average depth of pit is 2.6m. 5
masons said that pits are lined and constructed using concrete rings. The below Table 3.27 highlights
the resources required to build a toilet with pits for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 6: Resources required to build a toilet with pit for a household of 5 members in hilly
zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 12,000 Rs.80,000
Cost of labor Rs. 5,000 Rs.40,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs.
Time taken for construction 2 days 14 days
Area requirement 40sq.mt 100sq.mt
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
All the masons agreed that they learnt about design of toilets and containment system at their job
training and observation. 2 masons had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques.
When inquired about willingness to attend any of masons training programs, 7 masons agreed whereas
2 masons said they are not interested in any such training as they know enough in this field.
A3.3.4. North East Zone
Out of 10 masons covered, 1 mason felt that household members take the decisions for toilet
dimensions, 7 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion and 3 masons were of
the opinion that engineer gives toilet dimensions. Average area of toilet is 1.32 sq m. 9 masons agreed
that they have been using squatting pan and 10 masons agreed that they have been using western
commode. All masons agreed of providing 1 ventilation opening. 10 masons agreed that bricks are used
as materials of construction. Out of 10 masons covered, 5 masons felt that household members decide
the toilet location, 4 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion on toilet location,
2 masons were of the opinion that engineer decides the location and 2 masons felt that toilet location is
decided as per vastu. Out of 10 masons covered, 1 mason felt that household members decide the type
of containment system, 8 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion on type of
containment system and 2 masons were of the opinion that engineer decides the type of containment
system.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 79
8 masons said that septic tanks are preferred whereas 2 masons said that single pit is generally
preferred. Average dimensions of septic tanks built: L x B x D as 2.5m X 2.1m X 2.2m. 6 masons said
that septic tanks that they construct are single chambered, 2 masons said that septic tanks that they
construct are 2 chambered. 3 out of 10 masons said that they only plaster the septic tanks at bottom
whereas 2 masons said that he use water proofing plaster whereas 1 mason said that septic tanks are
not lined at bottom and 4 masons said they use other materials like stones etc. 1 mason said that
overflow outlet of septic tank should be connected to storm water drain and 9 masons said there
shouldn’t be any overflow outlets. The below Table 3.46 highlights the resources required to build a
toilet with septic tank for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 7: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Septic Tank for a Household of 5
Members in North East Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 20,000 Rs. 75,000
Cost of labor Rs. 4,500 Rs.25,000
Total cost Rs. 20,000 Rs.
Time taken for construction 3 days 7 days
Area requirement 16sq.ft 84.5sq.ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
As per the study, 4 masons agreed with single pits which are constructed circular in shape. Average
diameter of the pit is 1.4m. Average depth of pit is 1.9m. 4 masons said that pits are lined and
constructed using concrete rings. The below Table 3.29 highlights the resources required to build a
toilet with pits for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 8: Resources Required to Build a Toilet With Pits for a Household of 5 Members in
North East Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 10,000 Rs.
Cost of labor Rs. 1,500 Rs.2,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs.
Time taken for construction 1 day
Area requirement 25sq.ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
All the masons agreed that they learnt about design of toilets and containment system at their job training
and observation. None of masons had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques.
When inquired about willingness to attend any of masons training programs, 5 masons agreed whereas
4 masons said they are not interested in any such training, as they know enough in this field.
A3.3.5. North West Zone
Out of 9 masons covered, 3 masons felt that household members take the decisions for toilet
dimensions, 5 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion and 2 masons were of
the opinion that engineer gives toilet dimensions. Average area of toilet is 2.24 sq.m. 8 masons agreed
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 80
that they have been using squatting pan and 7 masons agreed that they have been using western
commode. All masons agreed of providing 1 ventilation opening. 8 masons agreed that bricks are used
as materials of construction. Out of 9 masons covered 5 masons were of the opinion that they
themselves take the opinion on toilet location, 2 masons were of the opinion that engineer decides the
location and 2 masons felt that toilet location is decided as per vastu. Out of 9 masons covered, 2
masons felt that household members decide the type of containment system, 6 masons were of the
opinion that they themselves take the opinion on type of containment system and 1 mason were of the
opinion that engineer decides the type of containment system.
8 masons said that septic tanks are preferred whereas 1 mason said that single pit is generally
preferred.
Average dimensions of septic tanks built: L x B x D as 2.4m X 1.6m X 2.4m. 1 mason said that septic
tanks that they construct are single chambered, 7 masons said that septic tanks, which they construct,
are 2 chambered. 8 out of 9 masons said that they only plaster the septic tanks at bottom and 1 mason
said that he use water proofing plaster. 2 masons said that overflow outlet of septic tank should be
connected to storm water drain and 3 masons said there shouldn’t be any overflow outlets. The below
Table 3.48 highlights the resources required to build a toilet with septic tank for a household of 5
members.
Table A3. 9: Resources Required to Build a Toilet With Septic Tank for a Household of 5
Members in North West Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 10,000 Rs.1,00,000
Cost of labor Rs. 5,000 Rs. 25,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs. 30,000
Time taken for construction 4days 20 days
Area requirement 48sq.ft 100sq.ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
As per the study, 2 masons agreed with single pits, which are constructed circular in shape. Average
diameter of the pit is 1.2m. Average depth of pit is 1.8m. 3 masons said that pits are lined and
constructed using concrete rings. The below Table 3.31 highlights the resources required to build a
toilet with pits for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 10: Resources Required to Build a Toilet With Pits for a Household of 5 Members in
North West Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 15,000 Rs.
Cost of labor Rs. 6,000 Rs.7,000
Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs.
Time taken for construction 2 days 6 days
Area requirement 30sq.ft 42sq.ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
All the masons agreed that they learnt about design of toilets and containment system at their job training
and observation. Only 1 mason had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 81
When inquired about willingness to attend any of masons training programs, 5 masons agreed whereas
4 masons said they are not interested in any such training, as they know enough in this field.
A3.3.6. South Zone
Out of 9 masons covered, 4 masons felt that
household members take the decisions for
toilet dimensions, 4 masons were of the
opinion that they themselves take the opinion
and 4 masons were of the opinion that
engineer gives toilet dimensions. Average
area of toilet is 1.69 sq.m. 9 masons agreed
that they have been using squatting pan and
7 masons agreed that they have been using
western commode. 8 masons agreed of
providing 1 ventilation opening while 1 mason
said that 2 ventilation openings are provided.
Figure 3.9 shows the masons interview. All 9
masons agreed that bricks are used as
materials of construction. Out of 9 masons
covered 6 masons were of the opinion that
they themselves take the opinion on toilet
location, 6 masons were of the opinion that
household members take the opinion on toilet
location and 4 masons were of the opinion
that engineer decides the location. Out of 9 masons covered, 5 masons felt that household members
decide the type of containment system, 4 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the
opinion on type of containment system and 3 masons were of the opinion that engineer decides the
type of containment system.
8 masons said that septic tanks are preferred whereas 1 mason said that single pit is generally
preferred. Average dimensions of septic tanks built: L x B x D as 2.2m X 1.5m X 2.5m. 6 masons said
that septic tanks that they construct are single chambered, 2 masons said that septic tanks that they
construct are 2 chambered. 8 out of 9 masons said that they only plaster the septic tanks at bottom and
1 mason said that he use water proofing plaster. 5 masons said that overflow outlet of septic tank should
be connected to storm water drain and 4 masons said there shouldn’t be any overflow outlets. The
below Table 3.32 highlights the resources required to build a toilet with septic tank for a household of 5
members.
Table A3. 11: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Septic Tank for a Household of 5
Members in South Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 16,000 Rs.1,00,000
Cost of labor Rs. 3,600 Rs.20,000
Total cost Rs. 5,000 Rs.
Time taken for construction 4 days 15 days
Area requirement 20sq.ft 220sq.ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Figure A3. 8: Mason's Interview Conducted by
Our Team Members On-Site
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 82
All the masons agreed that they learnt about design of toilets and containment system at their job
training and observation. 4 masons had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques.
When inquired about willingness to attend any of masons training programs, 4 masons agreed whereas
5 masons said they are not interested in any such training, as they know enough in this field.
A3.3.7. Cauvery Delta Zone
Out of 9 masons covered, 6 masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion and 3
masons were of the opinion that engineer gives toilet dimensions. Average area of toilet is 2.08 sqm. 8
masons agreed that they have been using squatting pan and 7 masons agreed that they have been
using western commode. 7 masons agreed of providing 1 ventilation opening while 1 mason said that
2 ventilation openings are provided. 8 masons agreed that bricks are used as materials of construction.
Out of 9 masons covered, 1 mason said that household member takes decision on toile location, 5
masons were of the opinion that they themselves take the opinion on toilet location and 2 masons were
of the opinion that engineer decides the location. Out of 9 masons covered, 3 masons felt that household
members decide the type of containment system, 4 masons were of the opinion that they themselves
take the opinion on type of containment system and 1 mason were of the opinion that engineer decides
the type of containment system.
8 masons said that septic tanks are preferred. Average dimensions of septic tanks built: L x B x D as
2.8m X 1.9m X 2.4m. 3 masons said that septic tanks that they construct are single chambered, 5
masons said that septic tanks, which they construct, are 2 chambered. 2 out of 9 masons said that they
only plaster the septic tanks at bottom and 4 masons said that they use water-proofing plaster. 5 masons
said that overflow outlet of septic tank should be connected to storm water drain and 3 masons said
there shouldn’t be any overflow outlets. The below Table 3.33 highlights the resources required to build
a toilet with septic tank for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 12: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Septic Tank for a Household of 5
Members in Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of Materials Rs. 10,000 Rs.60,000
Cost of labor Rs. 3,000 Rs.20,000
Total cost Rs. 1,00,000 Rs.
Time taken for construction 1 day 10 days
Area requirement 6sq.ft 96sq.ft
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
As per masons’ study, 1 mason agreed with single pits which are constructed circular in shape. Average
diameter of the pit is 1.5m. Average depth of pit is 3m. 2 masons said that pits are lined and constructed
using concrete rings. The below Table 3.34 highlights the resources required to build a toilet with pits
for a household of 5 members.
Table A3. 13: Resources Required to Build a Toilet With Pits for a Household of 5 Members in
Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Cost of materials Rs. 2,500 Rs.5,000
Cost of labor Rs. 1,500 Rs.2,000
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 83
Table A3. 13: Resources Required to Build a Toilet With Pits for a Household of 5 Members in
Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu
Resources Minimum Maximum
Total cost Rs. 1,00,000 Rs.
Time taken for construction 1 day 2 days
Area requirement 1 sq.ft 16.sq ft.
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
All the masons agreed that they learnt about design of toilets and containment system at their job
training and observation. 2 masons had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques.
When inquired about willingness to attend any of masons training programs, 7 masons agreed.
A3.4. Hygiene Conditions This section covers elements of the infrastructure that contributes to the hygiene conditions related to
user interface and containment. Hand washing was practiced by average 50 households across all the
7 zones. Nearly 85 percent of the households across zones had provision for ventilation inside toilet. It
was also observed that an average of 72 percent households across the zones had tap connection
inside the toilet and the ones with tap connection outside the toilet were found to be at distance of 1-3m
from toilet. The presence of foul smell was stated in very few number of households except in southern
zone were 21 out of 90 households stated presence of foul smell in toilet, this zone compared to other
zones had more toilet without ventilation facility.
Table A3. 14: Hygiene conditions
Zones
Hand
washing
facility
Ventilation
inside
toilet
Tap connection Distance
from toilet
to outside
tap
Presence
of foul
smell Inside
toilet
Outside
toilet
Cauvery Delta Zone 48 72 73 4 1m 9
High Rainfall Zone 57 81 62 11 1-3m 9
Hilly Zone 48 77 43 5 1m 5
North Eastern Zone 57 74 68 7 1m 5
North Western Zone 53 79 72 5 1m 3
Southern Zone 41 69 68 3 - 21
Western Zone 49 83 68 5 1-3m 0
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 85
Annexure 4: Emptying and Transportation
A4.1. Emptying description zone wise
A4.1.1. West Zone (WZ)
As per primary study, time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled is 1-2 years and 3-5 years for 2
households in each whereas for 18 households its more than 5 years. This is mainly due to large sizes
of septic tanks. Remaining 53 households had no idea about the time taken for septic tanks to get fully
filled as these septic tanks have never been filled. When time taken for septic tanks to get filled is
compared with desludging intervals, 1 household out of 90 is desludged every 6 months, whereas 2
households are desludged every year. 3 households are desludged once in 2 years. 4 households are
desludged once in 5 years and 13 households are desludged in more than 5 years’ time intervals.
Remaining households are never desludged. Only 5 out of 90 households are following the desludging
frequency of once in 2 years.
A4.1.2. High Rainfall Zone (HRZ)
As per primary Study, time taken
for septic tanks to get fully filled is
1 year, 1-2 years and 3-5 years for
1 household in each whereas for
7 households its more than 5
years. This is mainly due to large
sizes of septic tanks. Remaining
71 households had no idea about
the time taken for septic tanks to
get fully filled as these septic
tanks have never been filled.
When time taken for septic tanks
to get filled is compared with
desludging intervals, 3
households out of 90 is desludged
once in 2 years, whereas 1
household is desludged once in 5
years. 7 households are
desludged in more than 5 years’
time intervals. Remaining 71 households are never desludged. Only 3 out of 90 households are
following the desludging frequency of once in 2 years. Figure A4.1 shows a common disposal point of
the town.
A4.1.3. Hilly Zone (HZ)
As per primary study, time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled is 1 year for 4 households and 1-2
years for 5 households. For 2 households its 3-5 years whereas for 12 households its more than 5
years. This is mainly due to large sizes of septic tanks. Remaining 60 households had no idea about
the time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled as these septic tanks have never been filled.
When time taken for septic tanks to get filled is compared with desludging intervals, 4 households out
of 90 are desludged every year, whereas 5 households are desludged every 2-year. 1 and 2 nos. of
households are desludged once in 3 years and once in 5 years respectively and 11 households are
desludged in more than 5 years’ time intervals. Remaining households are never desludged. Only 9 out
of 90 households are following the desludging frequency of once in 2 years.
Figure 4. 1: Disposal of Sludge into a Low Lying Water Body
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 86
A4.1.4. North Eastern Zone (NEZ)
As per primary study, time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled is 1 year for 18 households and 1-2
years for 9 households. For 6 households its 3-5 years whereas for 14 households its more than 5
years. This is mainly due to large sizes of septic tanks. Remaining 28 households had no idea about
the time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled as these septic tanks have never been filled.
When time taken for septic tanks to get filled is compared with desludging intervals, 6 households out
of 90 are desludged every 6 months, whereas 13 households are desludged every year. 10 households
are desludged once in 2 years. 3 households are desludged once in 3 years. 3 households are
desludged once in 5 years and 8 households are desludged in more than 5 years’ time intervals.
Remaining households are never desludged. 29 out of 90 households are following the desludging
frequency of once in 2 years.
A4.1.5. North Western Zone (NWZ)
As per primary study, time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled is 1 year for 2 households and 1-2
years for 6 households. 9 households expressed it to be 3-5 years whereas for 7 households it is more
than 5 years. This is mainly due to large sizes of septic tanks. Remaining 61 households had no idea
about the time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled as these septic tanks have never been filled. When
time taken for septic tanks to get filled is compared with desludging intervals, 1 household out of 90 is
desludged every 6 months and 1 household is desludged once a year, whereas 7 households are
desludged once in 2 years and 3 households are desludged once in 3 years. 9 households are
desludged once in 5 years and 4 households are desludged in more than 5 years’ time intervals.
Remaining households are never desludged. Only 9 out of 90 households are following the desludging
frequency of once in 2 years.
A4.1.6. South Western Zone (SZ)
As per primary study, time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled is 1 year for 1 household and 1-2 years
for 3 households. Of the total covered households in this zone: 10 households desludged in 3-5 years
frequency whereas for 20 households it’s more than 5 years. This is mainly due to large sizes of septic
tanks. Remaining 53 households had no idea about the time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled as
these septic tanks have never been filled. When time taken for septic tanks to get filled is compared
with desludging intervals, 2 households out of 90 are desludged once in a year and 3 households is
desludged once in 2 years, whereas 6 households are desludged once in 3 years and 7 households are
desludged once in 5 years. 16 households are desludged in more than 5 years’ time intervals.
Remaining households are never desludged. Only 5 out of 90 households are following the desludging
frequency of once in 2 years.
A4.1.7. Cauvery Delta Zone (CDZ)
As per primary study, time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled is 1 year for 11 households and 1-2
years for 13 households. Of the total covered households in this zone: 10 households desludged in 3-
5 years whereas for 9 households it’s more than 5 years. This is mainly due to large sizes of septic
tanks. Remaining 34 households had no idea about the time taken for septic tanks to get fully filled as
these septic tanks have never been filled. When time taken for septic tanks to get filled is compared
with desludging intervals, 5 households out of 90 is desludged every 6 months and 8 households are
desludged once a year, whereas 14 households are desludged once in 2 years and 9 households are
desludged once in 3 years. 9 households are desludged once in 5 years and 10 households are
desludged in more than 5 years’ time intervals. Remaining households are never desludged. 27 out of
90 households are following the desludging frequency of once in 2 years.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 87
A4.2. Collection and Transportation The collection and conveyance part of the study was carried out by interviewing operators and owners
of private cesspool vehicles, at places where the government owned trucks were available, the sanitary
inspector or the vehicle operator were interviewed. In addition to these interviews, trained interviewers
carried out unobstructed observations. During the entire study, a total of 47 cesspool interviews were
made and 39 unobstructed observations carried out. These cesspool operators were from sampled from
various agro climatic zones, as detailed in the research methodology. The below section, describes the
characteristics and operational modalities of these cesspool operators across the various zones and
also compare them at a state level.
A4.2.1. Western Zone
A total of 6 cesspool operators were
interviewed in this region, 3 respectively in
Bhavani and Erode. All of the operators offer
septic tank cleaning as a single service. In
addition, 7 desludging trips were observed by
surveyors, 5 of them in Erode and 2 in
Bhavani. The period, since the service is run
by the owner, is 1 – 2 up to 14 – 15 years. On
the site, the cleaning of leach pits was rarely
observed as well. Dimensions of the
containment units are very un-uniform. Most
operators service out of Erode or Bhavani
and serve towns and villages in nearby
areas, in a radius of 10 – 50 km. At Erode, it
is common for owners to hire salaried
manpower to drive and operate these
vehicles, while in Bhavani, the owners
themselves operate the vehicles. Distribution
of business cards is the most prominent
source of marketing strategy to generate demand. The majority of the operators own 1 single truck,
whereas one Bhavani-based operator has a number of 3. The age of vehicles range between 2 – 15
years, with 4 of them less than 5 years in age. Customers usually call for services from October to
December in the time periods between 6 – 12 am and 5 – 10 pm (in Bhavani only in the morning hours).
1 operator from Bhavani as well as 1 from Erode desludge chemical waste from a clothes industry and
a steel factory.
Within all covered towns are areas which are not accessible for cesspool services, namely Akkaragaram
and Bhavani in Erode as well as Aagaragaram, Pallipalayam, Kumarapalayam and Jambai in Bhavani.
During observations on the site, the width of the access road to the household was 2 – 3 m as shown
in Figure 23 and in most of the cases no problems of reaching the destination were noticed. The distance
between the cesspool and the containment unit was between 2 and 50 m while desludging. During field
observations, the process of desludging usually took 6 – 17 min. Septic tanks are opened by the
operator and tanks without an opening are usually broken to access by the operator with the use of a
drilling machine, a steel rod or hammer. Most of the operators covered, stated it would require
approximately 30 – 60 min to break the septic tank, whereas one operator, using a steel rod and
hammer, claimed it would only take 10 min. This operator did not collect any extra fees for this service
while the others collected Rs. 100 – 600 extra. After desludging is completed, the operators are usually
not involved in sealing the manhole. In most of the desludging processes observed, the operators do
not add any kind of chemicals to prevent bad odor, while the use of kerosene was noticed in one case.
Figure A4.6.1: Measuring the Width of the Road to Observe the Truck Accessibility
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 88
All operators use vacuum pumps with the engine shaft as input power source and a horsepower of 10
(25 in one case) for desludging. Pumps have been manufactured at different locations, 15 – 380 km
apart. One of the operators uses pumps and pipes from 1989, the equipment of the rest of the operators
was manufactured more recently between 2005 and 2016, stating the life time would be 3 – 10 years.
The length of the hosepipes being used ranges from 15 – 60 m and the diameter from 2 – 5 inches.
Pump wetted parts are made out of casted iron and the sludge collection pipes are rubber.
In case the sludge is very thick and cannot be pumped out, operators add 1,000 – 2,000 liters of water,
which is usually taken from the household. The safety equipment being used is very ununiform. Only
during one observed trip, the use of latex gloves and a protection mask was noticed. Operators stated
that sludge spilling around the place of desludging is usually not a problem. If in contact with any sludge
spillover, workers claimed to wash their hands with soap and water. On the field, it was observed that
the equipment is only in some cases cleaned from spillover. Spillage from pipes is being disposed in
the septic tank, which was confirmed during field visits. 5 of the 6 operators covered do not have a
strainer at the inlet to the suction pipe. Pumps break down approximately every 1 – 2 years, in which
case local mechanics are available to repair the pump. During field observations, mostly no leakages
or blockages of the pipe have been noticed and the operation of the suction valve during desludging/
disposal seemed to be easy.
Tanks being used usually have 1 chamber with a capacity of 3,000 – 5,000 liters. The inner surface is
rubber coated. Outlet valves have uniformly a diameter of 4 inches and are mostly 3 feet above ground
level. 5 out of 6 operators use ball valves, the remaining 1 a butterfly valve. Cesspools have 2 axles,
with sizes ranging from 10ft length/ 7ft width to 17ft length/ 6ft width. The highest mileage of 10 km per
liter has the smallest and oldest truck (manufactured in 1989) from Bhavani, the lowest of 4 km per liter
a 15ft length/ 6ft width one from 2005 located in Erode. All vehicles are diesel refueled, usually of Rs.
58 costs per liter. Studyors observed that the painting of the tank was old but covered completely.
4 of 6 operators stated to decide the disposal site according to the farmer. All claimed that none of the
known operators dispose sludge into water bodies or drains, whereas Thindal, Veppadai, Lakka Puram
and Palli Palayam in Erode as well as Rajalakshmi Road and Thayir Palayam in Bhavani are supposed
to be frequent disposal sites. During the study, operators stated to cover 10 – 20 km to reach the
disposal destination. Figure 24 shows one of the disposal point. During site observations the distances
were a bit shorter with 1 – 10 km. Disposal on farmlands, lasting 3 – 5 min, was mostly noticed during
observations on the site. Reasons for not disposing faecal sludge into the treatment plant are time and
distance consistently. In the case farm owners reward for long distances to their land (4 of 6 cases),
amounts ranging from Rs. 500 – 2,000 are being paid. In October to December, operators usually face
problems within the disposal process. Vehicles are generally not being cleaned after every disposal but
once per week to every 3 months, whereas it was observed that hosepipes usually are cleaned after
the desludging process.
For the operation of the desludging vehicle, 3 – 4 workers are required. Drivers receive a monthly salary
of Rs. 10,000 – 15,000 and helpers get an amount of Rs. 9,000 – 10,000. On average, one vehicle
desludge 2 – 4 septic tanks per day (60 – 120 per month). The costs of desludging are Rs. 3,000 in
Bhavani and Rs. 1,800 – 3,000 in Erode, usually based on the condition of sludge. The amount of
additional income, such as tips but also other incentives like provident funds, accounts for monthly Rs.
200 – 11,000. The investment costs of a cesspool range from Rs. 10,000 – 16 lakh, additional Rs. 30,000
– 1.5 lakh are required for purchasing a pump, Rs. 20,000 to 1 lakh for the desludging pipe and Rs.
60,000 – 6 lakh for fitting the tank and other accessories. For maintenance of the vehicle and the pump,
the operators spend Rs. 75,000 – 1.7 lakh. Overload of the engine and the pump are the main
maintenance problems; the operators face at intervals from 1 time per year to 2 times a month. The
reparation requires 1 – 10 days of time and costs Rs. 5,000 – 50,000.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 89
A4.2.2. High Rainfall Zone
In this zone, a total of 6 cesspool operators
have been interviewed, 5 of them based in
Nagercoil and 1 in Peruvillai, all offering
desludging of septic tanks only. On the
site, also the cleaning of leach pits has
been observed. Additionally, 4 desludging
trips in Nagercoil and 1 in Peruvillai have
been observed in detail, the majority of
them in individual houses. 3 of the
operators are the owners of the service, 2
are employed to drive and operate these
vehicles and 1 is a relative of the owner.
The time period, the service is run by the
owner is 1 – 2 up to 9 – 10 years. In
Nagercoil, the covered operators run their
service with 1 – 3 vehicles, whereas in
Peruvillai 5 cesspools are operating under
1 service provider. It was observed in the
field that the truck surface was rusty with
little painting or old but completely covered
with painting. To address potential clients, all covered operators distribute business cards to the
households. Operating is usually scheduled between the months of October to December, however
times are differing between the operators and are generally from 6 – 12am and from 5 – 9pm. Only one
of the operators (based in Peruvillai) stated to desludge also chemical waste from a rubber factory,
which he is disposing at vacant land. Most operators claimed there would be certain pockets within the
town which are not accessible, namely Idalakudi, Kulasekaram, Pechipaarai, Nagaraja Street, Kuttar,
Susintharam and Katavalai in Nagercoil. During site visits, the width of the access road to the household
was 4 – 8ft and the vehicle was parked 2 – 66ft apart. No difficulties in reaching the destination have
been observed.
Septic tanks being desludged have a capacity of 4,500 – 5,000 liters and the service providers cover
distances between 10 and 40 km to reach their clients as shown in Figure 25. Sludge is being pumped
out by the use of a vacuum pump with a horsepower of 10 – 20, manufactured at different locations in
Tamil Nadu between 2004 and 2015. This process took about 3 – 8 min during field observations. Oil
engines are the input power source in most cases, while 2 of the operators use engine shafts. Hosepipes
are usually 33 – 50 m long and in one case only 7.6 m, while the diameter is uniformly 4 inches. Pump
wetted parts are made of casted iron and the sludge collection pipe is out of rubber. To connect an
extension pipe, clamps are mostly being used. 4 out of 6 operators stated the hosepipe would have a
life span of 5 years, while the remaining 2 claimed it would be a bit shorter.
Most operators add 100 – 1,000 litres of water from the household, using the pipe or a bucket, if the
sludge is very thick and cannot be pumped out easily. In case a septic tank at the household does not
have a manhole, the operator breaks it open using a steel rod. During field visits, in 2 out of 5 cases,
the tank was opened by a household member. The process of breaking the tank takes the operator 20
min to 2 hours and is mostly charged extra (Rs. 200 – 600). Closing the manhole is not included in the
services of the operator. Most operators stated that no sludge is left in the septic tank after desludging,
however during field visits 2 – 15ft of sludge remained in the tank. Safety equipment for desludging is
being used very un-uniformly, some using latex gloves, masks or goggles. Only during 1 of the observed
trips, the operator used oil to prevent smell from sludge and protective equipment have not been used
during all 5 observed trips. In 3 out of 5 observations, hands have not been cleaned after desludging.
Figure A4.6.2: Septic Tank Desludging Service Provided by a Private Operator
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 90
None of the operators stated that sludge usually spills around the place of desludging. In the case of
sludge contact, workers would wash their hands with soap and water. Spillage from pipes is disposed
either in septic tanks or soaks pits. None of the covered operators use a strainer at the inlet to the
suction pipe, but all operators claimed to have problems with pipe blockages. During field observations,
foreign objects have been absent in the sludge. Also blockages or leakages of the pipe have not been
observed and the suction valve during desludging/ disposal operated easily in most of the cases,
although once manual effort was required. In case of problems with the pipe, which happens 1 – 20
times per year, there are local mechanics available to repair the pump.
The capacity of the tank is 4,500 – 5,500 liters, the inner surface is rubber coated in 4 cases and without
rested paint in the remaining. Ball valves are used as outlet valves and measure 4 – 5 inches, placed
approximately 1 m above ground level. Operating cesspools are usually have 2 axles and a width of 7ft.
All vehicles are diesel refueled, usually of Rs. 58 costs per liter. The mileage of the vehicles ranges
from 4 – 8 km per liter.
3 of 6 covered operators stated that the site of sludge disposal is decided about based on the rules of
the municipality, whereas 2 mentioned to dispose the sludge in vacant areas. During field visits, the
distance between desludging point and point of disposal was 4 – 15 km apart. All claimed that none of
the known operators dispose sludge into water bodies or drains, which is in contrast to field
observations, during which the disposal point of the sludge was a natural drain in 3 of 5 cases. Operators
stated Vellamadam vacant land, Seethapal and Vellamadam in Nagercoil as well as Thalakudi
Santhavelai in Peruvillai to be frequent disposal sites. Reasons for not disposing the sludge into the
treatment plant are time and distance consistently. In 5 out of 6 cases, the cesspool operators
mentioned to be rewarded Rs. 200 – 1,500 if the farmland for disposal is far away. Operators usually
face problems in sludge disposal in the months between October and December. The desludging
process required 3 – 4 min during field visits. Afterwards, the vehicles are not being cleaned but every
two weeks to once per year. During observations on the field it was noticed that the pipe has been
cleaned after the desludging process in 2 out of 5 cases. Furthermore, it was recognized that the driver
was drunk during one trip and during another one, one of the workers has been. Figure 26 shows the
use of land as dumping point for sludge.
For the operation of the desludging vehicle, 3
– 8 workers are required. Drivers receive a
monthly salary of Rs. 10,000 – 20,000 and
helpers as well as other staff get an amount of
Rs. 6,000 – 12,000. The maximum average
number of trips per day an operator stated is
8, the minimum is twice a week, which
accounts to 8 – 90 trips per month. The costs
of desludging are ranging between Rs. 2,500
and 4,500 according to the operators, hence it
was observed in the field that the service was
for free in 3 out of 5 cases (Rs. 4,500 have
been paid in the remaining). The amount of
additional income accounts for monthly Rs.
100 – 500, however one operator stated Rs.
2,000 per person a month is being paid
additional through other monetary benefits (ESI, PF, bonus, etc.).
The investment costs of a cesspool range from Rs. 8 – 15 lakh, plus Rs. 1 – 2.6 lakh for purchasing the
pump, Rs. 35,000 to 1.5 lakh for the desludging pipe and 3 – 5 lakh for fitting the tank and other
accessories. Maintenance costs for the cesspool account for 70,000 – 2 lakh and for the pump Rs.
8,000 – 60,000, which leads to costs of Rs. 75,000 – 2.22 lakh for the operator. As the main maintenance
Figure A4.6.3: Solid Waste Dumping Yard Used as One of the Dumping Points for Sludge
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 91
problems, operators spot the expired life cycle of the pump as well as breakages of the pump due to
heavy load. It requires 1 – 4 days to fix the pump, leading to costs of Rs. 6,000 – 26,000. In the field,
leakage from the tanks shell has been observed and no leakages during transportation in the remaining
cases.
A4.2.3. Hilly Zone
3 interviews have been conducted with cesspool operators in this zone, all of them based in
Udhagamandalam and employed by the owner. Additionally, one desludging process of a septic tank
(6 x 4 x 8ft) in an individual house in Udhagamandalam has been observed in detail. The time period,
the service is run by the owner is 1 – 2 up to 3 – 4 years. Most operators are equipped with 1 truck,
carrying out desludging of septic tanks as a single service. Display boards at public places and the
distribution of business cards to households are main marketing sources. Operating is mostly scheduled
in the morning hours (9 – 12am) between the months of October to December and in one case from
April – May as well. Distances covered to carry out the service differ strongly between the interviewed
operators: households are 6 – 200 km away and the location of discharge is 1 – 200 km apart. 2
operators claimed to desludge chemical waste from a leather and a niddle factory. Kunnur Bus stand,
Alikal, Nontimadu and Thenadu Kambai are areas within Udhagamandalam, operators stated to be not
accessible.
Septic tanks without an opening are usually broken by a household member or the operator, using a
steel rod. This process takes approximately 30 min and is usually not charged extra. During the
observed desludging process, the manhole was opened by a household member. Vacuum pumps with
10 HP, manufactured between 2008 and 2016, are used to pump the sludge out. The engine shaft is
the input power source in all 3 covered cases and the sizes of hosepipes differ between 13 and 60 m in
length and between 3.5 – 4 inches in diameter, according to the operator. The lifetime of a hosepipe
lasts 3 – 6 years. Pump wetted parts are made out of casted iron and sludge collection pipes out of
rubber. For extending the length of the pipe, clamps are being used by 2 of the covered operators. In
cases, where the sludge is too thick to be pumped out easily, operators use 30 – 1000 liters of water
from the household. For safety, operators stated to wear masks or goggles (goggles have been worn
during the observed trip). After the desludging process is finished, about 2 inches – 2ft remain in the
septic tank.
In case of contact with sludge or spillover, operators stated to wash their hands with soap and water
and to dispose the spillage in the septic tank. During the observation of the desludging process, it was
noticed, that only the pipe has been cleaned after the process and that workers did not wash their hands
after being in contact with sludge. Operators reported to face problems of blocked pipes several times
during the desludging process. A strainer is generally not being used. For potential problems with the
pump, mechanics are locally available. The capacity of the tank is claimed to be 2,000 – 6,000 liters
and the inner surface is usually rubber coated. Outlet valves are ball valves, placed 3ft above the ground
level and are 3 – 4 inches in diameter. During the accompanied trip by a surveyor, desludging took 15
min and no problems during the desludging process have been faced (no foreign objects in the sludge,
no blockages, etc.).
Cesspool vehicles are built between 2008 and 2016, according to the service provider. All have 2 axles,
a length of 16 – 18ft and a width of 6ft. The mileages of the vehicles differ between 3 and 6 km per liter.
All vehicles fuel diesel, leading to costs of Rs. 57 – 58 per liter. It was observed that the painting on the
tank is old but completely covered.
Operators stated to choose the disposal site as per municipal rules, but not discharging in a treatment
plant for distance and time reasons. Instead, Mettupalayam in the west and mini gardens are claimed
to be frequent disposal points. Nevertheless, operators stated none of the known operators would
dispose sludge in drains or water bodies. During the trip observed by a surveyor, the sludge was
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 92
disposed in a treatment plant, 3 km apart from the desludging point. The process of sludge disposal
took 6 min. 2 of 3 operators stated to be rewarded Rs. 400 – 2,000 by the farmer for traveling long
distances to farmlands for sludge disposal. October to December are the months, when operators
usually face problems in disposing sludge. Vehicles are usually not cleaned after every single trip but
on weekly – monthly basis. 2 to 5 labour per desludging vehicle are required to carry out the service.
Drivers receive a monthly salary of Rs. 9,000 – 32,000, while workers get Rs. 7,000 – 19,000 per month.
One of the covered operators stated other monetary benefits (ESI, PF, bonus, etc.) are being payed to
employees. The covered operators do approximately 2 – 5 trips a day, leading to 60 – 150 trips a month.
Clients pay Rs. 2,000 – 3,000 on average for the desludging service. It was observed that, the customer
payed an amount of Rs. 2,000 which included tips and other expenses. Major maintenance problems
associated with the desludging vehicle are mentioned to be the engine (due to heavy load) and tires
(due to puncture). For repairing the engine, mechanics take 5 days and charge Rs. 30,000, while
repairing a tire takes 1 day and costs Rs. 150.
A4.2.4. North East Zone
In this zone, a total of 10 operators
have been interviewed, out of which 5
are based in Kanchipuram, 3 in
Vellore and 2 in Sriperambadur.
Additionally, a number of 12 trips have
been observed in detail, 4 out of them
with Vallore-based operators, 3 from
Sriperambadur and 5 from
Kanchipuram. All covered operators
are employed by the owner, who is
running the service with 1 – 3 vehicles
since 2 – 3 up to 9 – 10 years.
Cleaning septic tanks is the only
offered service carried out by the
operator. 5 out of 10 operators
claimed to distribute business cards to
households for marketing. The times
customers usually call to state their
demand differs between operators:
some receive calls especially in the early morning hours, while others receive calls during the entire day
until 7pm. The highest desludging requests are being received in November but also during October
and December.
Quantities that are being desludged are high from 4,000 – 10,800 liters. To reach the desludging point
6 – 30 km are being covered. 2 out of 10 operators also desludge chemical waste from institutions such
as industries and small scale units, disposing it at Amarmedu as well as at vacant land within the
municipality boundary as shown in Figure 3.33. During site visits, desludging services have been
observed for 11 residential customers as well as for 1 industry, all of them using septic tanks of
dimensions ranging from 2 x 1 x 2 ft to 10 x 10 x 10 ft. To investigate the volume of the containment
unit, operators mostly use a steel rod.
Figure A4.6.4: Faecal Sludge Dumped at Low Lying Land
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 93
With one exception, all operators report there would be certain pockets within the town which are not
accessible by cesspools, namely Saidapet, Kakithapattarai, Sorpanan Medu, Solan Pattai and
Saithapettai in Vellore, Kamarajar Nagar in Sriperambadur, as well as Onarikupam Orikai
Thirukalimedu, Vinayakapuram, Potheri, CVM Nagar, Arul Nagar, the Old Railway Station, and
Pillayarpalayam main road in Kanchipuram. During observed trips, there were difficulties to reach the
destination due to narrow roads, barricades or other temporary road blockages. Access roads had a
width of 3 – 12 m and parking of the cesspool was 1 – 12 m apart from the septic tank.
Septic tanks without an opening are broken, usually by the operator with a steel rod and hammer. Also
during site visits, the manholes were often concealed and opened by the operator. This process is not
being charged extra but takes 5 min up to 1 hour. After the desludging process is finished, the tank is
mostly closed by the operator. Sludge is being pumped out with 10 HP vacuum pumps, which are
manufactured in Chennai in most of the cases. The oldest pump an operator is using is from 1997, the
newest ones are not even a year in age. Hosepipes measure 20 – 100ft in length and a diameter of 3 –
4 inches. The material of pump wetted parts as well as the sludge collection pipe and the tank differ
according to the operator between PVC, rubber and steel. To extend the pipe, either couplings or clamps
are being used. Life spans of hosepipes vary enormously between operators, some of them stating it
would be only 4 months while others use it up to 10 years. In case the sludge is very thick and cannot
be pumped out, in most cases 50 – 1000 liter water from the households is being added, using a bucket
or the hosepipe. One operator reports to use a mixture of kerosene, soap and water to soften the sludge.
During most of the observed trips, this was not necessary. After the desludging process is finished,
operators claimed, up to 3ft of sludge remains in the tank. During observations on the field, 1 inch – 5ft
were left in the tank. Usually no chemicals or additives have been used to prevent smell, while in one
case, kerosene was added. According to observations on the field, the desludging process usually takes
10 – 17 min.
If safety equipment is worn, it is only a mask, while gloves, goggles, shoes or uniforms are not being
used. During 2 of the observed trips, a mask as well as latex gloves have been worn by the workers,
while during the remaining 10, no safety equipment was used. If sludge spills around the place of
desludging, hands are being washed with soap and water or only water. During 7 out of 12 observed
trips, workers cleaned themselves with freshwater. Spillage from pipes is disposed into the open drains
outside the house most of the times, while only 2 out of 10 operators dispose it in septic tanks. All
operators stated to have a strainer at the inlet to the suction pipe, which is getting blocked several times
during desludging. During site visits, no leakages of the pipes during the desludging process or
transportation have been observed and except one case, there were no blockages while desludging.
Usually the suction valve operated easily, however during 2 covered trips manual effort was required.
Six out of 10 operators claimed, there would be local mechanics available in case the pump is broken,
which happens once up to 4 times a year. The tanks being used mostly have 1 chamber and hold a
capacity of 4,000 – 16,000 liters sludge. Outlet valves are mounted 0.5 – 1.5 m above the ground,
having a diameter of 4 – 8 inches. Valve types differ from operator to operator, most of them using ball
valves, some butterfly or diaphragm valves. Operating vehicles are manufactured between 1997 and
2012 and have either 1 or 2 axles. Their length ranges between 1.5 and 9 m, the mileage from 1.5 – 6
km per liter. All vehicles are diesel fueled, leading to costs of Rs. 52 – 57 per liter.
Six out of 10 operators stated to dispose faecal sludge according to the municipality orders. Reasons
for not discharging it at the treatment plant are the procedures in most of the cases, sometimes time
and distance. Frequent disposal points are 6 – 30 km away from the source: the STP at the new bus
stand and Sathuvacherrai bypass in Vellore, in Sriperambadur, they are located in Amarmedu and
Aayakulathur Village Sriperumbudur and in Kanchipuram in Kanchipuram Thirukalimedu, the backside
of MGR Nagar (in Kanchipuram) and in Thirukalimedu.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 94
During site observations, 1 – 10 km have been travelled to reach the disposal point, which was vacant
land in nearly all cases. In case long distances have to be covered to reach the farmland for disposal
for faecal sludge, 2 of 10 operators are rewarded with Rs. 100 for this by the farm owners. Problems
during sludge disposal are faced during the months October – December. None of the operators claimed
to know any other operator discharging sludge into open drains or water bodies. Vehicles are mostly
not cleaned after every single trip but at periodic intervals once a week – once a year. During
observations in the field, pipe, pump and tank have been cleaned only in a few cases after disposal,
while the vehicle has not been cleaned. The disposal process required a total of 1 – 4 min.
The number of staff per desludging vehicle ranges from 2 – 6. Drivers and workers receive either a
monthly salary (Rs. 7,000 – 12,000 for drivers/ Rs. 5,000 – 10,000 for workers) or are being paid on a
daily basis (Rs. 250 – 400 for drivers/ Rs. 100 – 200 for workers). Desludging trips are being carried out
on average once a day for some operators up to 7 times per day for others, leading to a monthly number
of 30 – 210 trips. Also the costs of the desludging service vary vastly between the suppliers: while one
covered operator claimed to charge Rs. 300, others are charging up to Rs. 3,500. Other sources of
income are rare. During site visits, the price of the desludging was fixed according to the distance of the
customer or the condition of the sludge and ranged between Rs. 750 and 13,000.
Investment costs of desludging vehicles account to Rs. 75,000 at a minimum to a maximum of 15 lakh,
while vacuum pumps cost Rs. 30,000 – 4 lakh and a pipe Rs. 1,000 – 20,000. Additionally, Rs. 2,000 –
1.5 lakh are required for fitting the tank and other accessories. Maintenance of the pump leads to costs
of Rs. 10,000 – 5 lakh, while the vehicle requires maintenance costs of Rs. 35,500 – 1.5 lakh. Major
maintenance problems are various, often concerning the pump. For reparations, Rs. 200 for fixing a
puncture and Rs. 80,000 for a fitness certificate is charged by mechanics.
A4.2.5. North West Zone
A total of 7 interviews with cesspool operators have been carried out in this zone, all of them based in
Salem. 5 of them are employed by the owner of the service while 1 is a relative. Additionally, a sum of
3 trips for desludging septic tanks of different sizes (10 x 8 x 10 ft/ 10 x 10 x 10 ft / 7 x 3 x 8 ft) in
individual houses in Salem have been observed in detail. The duration of operation differs between 1 –
2 years to 11 – 12 years. Most operate with one vehicle, while one service provider has a number of 3
cesspools. Offered services are mostly desludging of septic tanks only, whereas one service provider
supplies water as well. For marketing of desludging services, business cards are generally distributed
to households. Highest customer demand is recognized in October – December between 7 and 12am
in most of the cases as well as in the evening hours from 5 – 10pm. None of the covered operators
claimed to desludge any chemical waste from institutions such as industries and small scale units.
There are certain pockets within the town, which are not accessible by desludging vehicles available,
namely Vinayaga University, Vidhya Nagar and the new bus stand in Amma Petti, the old bus stand as
well as Salem bus stand and junction. In case the septic tank is sealed, operators stated to break it
open, using a steel rod and hammer, which takes 5 min to 1 hour, according to the operator. For this
service, 5 of the study operators charge Rs. 100 – 300 extra. Usually, the operators are not involved in
closing the manhole after the desludging process is completed. Also during accompanied trips, the
manhole was broken by the operator. The vehicle was parked 1.2 – 4.5 meters away from the septic
tank.
Operators stated, their customers would be 15 – 100 km away. Usual desludging capacities range
between 5,000 – 7,000 liters. During a field observation, the desludging process required 8 min.
Operators use vacuum pumps with a power of 10, in one case 22 HP. The pumps are manufactured in
different cities in Tamil Nadu, mostly in Chennai in the years 1998 – 2014. Input power source is the
engine shaft in all covered cases. In case the sludge is too thick, operators add 400 – 500 liters of water
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 95
from the household with the use of the pipe. During one of the observed trips, addition of 5,000 liters
water was noted, but no use of other additives. After the desludging process is finished, operators stated
that 1 inch up to 2 feet of sludge is remaining in the tank, while surveyors observed 5 inches – 2ft
remaining sludge. Safety equipment, used by the workers differs between the operators: some using
latex gloves (3 cases), goggles (2 cases) or a mask (1 cases), while one operator stated to not use any
protection wear. During observed trips, in none of the cases any kind of protection equipment has been
worn. Also no addition of chemicals for preventing the smell of the sludge has been noted. Usually, the
sludge does not spill around during the desludging process. Spillage from pipes is generally disposed
in the septic tank. If in contact with sludge, operators wash their hands with soap and water. In 6 out of
7 cases, operators do not use strainers at the inlet to the suction pipe and in most of the cases; the pipe
gets blocked several times during desludging. The majority of the operators claimed there would be
local mechanics available in case the pump breaks, which happens up to 20 times per year. During
accompanied trips, surveyors did not experience cases of leaking pipes or blockages during operations.
The suction valves operated easily while desludging and disposal and in case of spillover, spillage was
discharged in the septic tank and equipment as well as the hands of the worker were cleaned with fresh
water.
The tank holds capacities of 5,000 – 7,000 liters sludge in 1 – 2 chambers. The inner surface of the tank
is rubber coated. Outlet valves are generally ball valves, placed 3 – 4ft above the ground and having a
diameter of 4 – 6 inches. Vehicles are manufactured in 1998 – 2014, have a width between 6 and 7ft
and have 2 axles in all covered cases. Mileages vary from 4 – 10 km per liter according to the operator.
All vehicles are diesel fueled, leading to costs of Rs. 56 – 58 per liter.
Cesspool operators travel distances from 3 – 50 km for discharge of the sludge, mostly in Neikara Patti,
but also in Thirumna Mutharu, Tharamangalam and KR Thoppu. During observed trips, the disposal
point was 10 km far from farm land. Approximately half of the interviewed operators stated to decide
the point of disposal according to municipality rules, while the other half decide as per the wishes of the
customer. While most of the operators claimed not to know any other service providers disposing sludge
into drains and water bodies, one confirmed this would be the case. Reasons for not discharging into a
treatment plant are distance and time in most of the cases. One operator stated to travel long distances
to farm lands for sludge disposal and gets Rs. 1,000 of the farm owner for the effort. Problems of sludge
disposal generally occur in the months between October and December. Usually, vehicles are not being
cleaned after every desludging trip but once a week – every 2 months. During field observations, sludge
disposal took 3 min times. The truck has been cleaned after sludge disposal in 1 out of 3 cases;
however, the pipe has always been cleaned.
3 – 4 workers are required for operations per desludging vehicle. Drivers receive a monthly salary of
Rs. 8,000 – 15,000, while helpers get less with Rs. 3,000 – 10,000 per month. The number of average
trips per day differs according to the service provider, some of them stating to run up to 3 trips a day on
average, while others do only every second day, leading to 15 – 90 trips a month. Costs of desludging
are Rs. 2,500 uniformly, which was validated during accompanied trips. Additionally, Rs. 30 – 200 are
being received through tips and breaking the manhole and in 2 cases another Rs. 3,000 – 5,000 of other
monetary benefits (ESI, PF, bonus, etc.) are paid to employees. Investment costs for the cesspool are
mostly Rs. 9 lakh, in some cases up to Rs. 12 lakh. A pump costs Rs. 1 – 2 lakh, a pipe Rs. 10,000 –
1.2 lakh and another Rs. 3 – 4.5 lakh are required for fitting the tank and other accessories. For
maintenance of the vehicle and the pump, monthly costs account Rs. 46,000 – 1.5 lakh, whereby
maintenance of the vehicle constitutes for the majority of the costs. Major maintenance issues occur
concerning the pump, the engine or the radiator, mostly due to heavy load, which happens once a month
to once a year. For repairing, 1 day up to 2 weeks are required, leading to costs of Rs. 3,000 (radiator)
– 30,000 (pump).
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 96
A4.2.6. South Zone
In the southern zone, a total of 4 cesspool operators have been interviewed, 3 of them in Thootikudi (3
employed by the owner and 1 relative) and 1 in Kovilpatti (employed by the owner). In addition to the
interviews, 1 trip of a service provider, operating in Thootikudi, has been accompanied by a surveyor,
which was carried out to desludge a leach pit of an industry. The time period, the service is run by the
owner of the service differs between 2 – 3 years and 14 – 15 years. Interviewed operators have either
1 truck (3 cases) or 3 trucks (1 case) to deliver desludging of septic tanks as a single service. Their
marketing is carried out in most of the cases through the distribution of business cards but also by
distributing pamphlets to households and by written mobile numbers on the vehicles. Major times in the
day, clients are calling for desludging services are from 6am – 3pm from October to December. None
of the interviewed operators stated to desludge chemical waste from industries.
All operators claimed there would be certain pockets within the respective town, which are not
accessible by the available cesspools: Gandhi Nagar in Kovilpatti as well as Jeyalani Street, Theru
Puthu Street and SS Pillaiyar Market in Shanmugam Puram, Fathima Nagar and Thomas Nagar in the
town of Thootikudi. Distances to the clients are in a radius of 10 – 50 km from the service provider apart.
In case of septic tanks without openings, operators state to break the tank using a steel rod, which
usually takes 10 min – 1 hour. This service is only in one case charged extra for a fee of Rs. 400. The
sludge quantity varies between 3,000 and 5,000 liters according to the operators. During the observed
trip, the pit was concealed and opened by the operator. The access road had a width of 6 m and the
truck was parked 1 m apart from the containment unit. No chemicals or other additives have been used
to prevent smell and no protective equipment has been worn by the operator. Sludge is pumped out
with the use of vacuum pumps, which mostly have a power of 10 HP (or 5 HP in one case). 2 operators
stated their pumps have been manufactured in Madurai or Thootikudi. The year of manufacture differs
between 1998 and 2014 as per the interviewed operators. Input power is the engine shaft in all covered
cases. The hose pipes being used are manufactured 1 – 10 years ago, have a length of 4.4 – 36.6 m,
diameters from 3 – 6 inches and are made out of rubber. For extended length of the pipe, another pipe
is connected by the use of couplings. In case the sludge is too thick to be desludged easily, 1 operator
adds kerosene, while the remaining 3 use 200 – 1000 liters of water, supplied from the household, using
a bucket or a pipe. After the desludging process is finished, no sludge up to 1 inch is remaining in the
septic tank. Safety equipment, worn during the desludging process are uniforms (1 case) and masks (1
case). Sludge usually does not spill around while desludging. If in contact with spillage, operators wash
their hands with soap and water. 2 out of 4 operators dispose spillage into the septic tank, while 1
disposes into drains and another 1 into vacant lands. During the observed trip, there was a strainer
present at the inlet suction pipe. The use of additional water was not required and the suction valve
operated easily. No leakages or blockages have been noticed during desludging, but leakages from the
valve during transportation. Workers cleaned their hands and their equipment with fresh water after the
desludging process. No sludge was left in the pit after desludging.
Usually, no strainers are being used at the inlet to the suction pipe. Blockages of the pipe happen
approximately once per desludging process. In case the pump breaks – which happens generally 1 – 3
times a year – all operators stated there would be local mechanics available to repair it. Tank capacities
measure between 3,000 and 5,000 liters, distributed among 1 – 2 chambers. The inner surfaces are
rubber lined/ paint coated. The type of the outlet valves are ball valves, placed 3 – 4ft above the ground
and measure 4 – 6 inches in diameter. Available cesspools are manufactured in 1998, 2002 or 2012,
all have 1 axle and a width of 5 – 8 ft. All desludging vehicles of the covered operators are diesel fueled
(costs of Rs. 54 – 58), with a mileage of 4 (in 1 case 6) km per liter.
Point of discharge are usually 10 – 50 km apart (6 km in the case of the observed trip) and often chosen
as per the rules of the municipality. Reasons for non-disposal into treatment plants are time and
distance, in the case of the Kovilpatti-based operator procedures. As frequent discharge points,
operators from Thuthukudi mentioned the areas Tharuvaikulam, Pakkil channel and Thuthukudi,
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 97
whereas the operator from Kovilpatti usually discharges faecal sludge in the Municipality Comport
Karangaluku Patti. 2 out of 4 operators stated to be rewarded by farm owners with cash (Rs. 100/ Rs.
1000) in case of long travels for disposing sludge into farmlands. Problems of disposing sludge are
being faced in March/ April as well as in October – December. None of the interviewed operators stated
to know any service provider disposing faecal sludge into drains or water bodies, whereas during the
observed trip, sludge was disposed into a storm water drain. Cesspool cleaning is usually being done
at periodic intervals, on a weekly up to quarter yearly basis.
Out of 4 operators, 3 mentioned a number of 4 workers would be required per desludging vehicle, while
1 operator runs the service with only 3 workers per vehicle. The salary is on a monthly basis in most of
the cases and differs according to the operators: drivers receive Rs. 13,000/ 14,000/ 40,000 and helpers
Rs. 8,500/ 10,000/ 30,000. In one case, staff is being paid daily: drivers Rs. 350 and helpers Rs. 200 a
day. 1 operator stated workers would receive another Rs. 100 per loading through tips or for breaking
the manhole, etc. and in 1 case workers get another Rs. 1,500 through other monetary benefits (ESI,
PF, bonus, etc.). The service provider, paying the most to the staff carries out 10 trips a day (300 per
month), while the remaining ones only do 1 or 2 in one day (30/ 60 a month). The costs for desludging
are between Rs. 1,500 and 3,500 (Rs. 1,200 in the case of the observed trip). Investment costs for the
vehicle account for Rs. 12 up to 20 lakh, for the pump it is Rs. 1.5 – 2.1 lakh, for the pipe Rs. 1,200 –
60,000 and the costs for fitting the tank and other accessories are Rs. 3 – 4.5 lakh. For maintenance of
the pump, Rs. 2,000 – 70,000 are being paid and for the vehicle Rs. 0.6 – 1.5 lakh. Major maintenance
problems, operators stated, often concern the pump, which occurs once a year and leads to costs of
Rs. 16,000 – 35,000 and requires 1 – 2 days for reparation. 1 operator mentioned, major maintenance
problems would be oil changes and tires. These problems would occur once a month and costs Rs.
5,000.
A4.2.7. Cauvery Delta Zone
10 operators have been interviewed within the Cauvery Delta Zone, 6 of them in Tarangambadi, 3 in
Thanjavur and 1 in Vedaranyam. In addition, 8 trips have been accompanied by a coveror, 3 of them in
Vedaranyam and Tarangambadi respectively and 2 in Thanjavur. 3 of the observed trips were carried
out to desludge septic tanks from individual households and another 3 from groups of houses. Except
1 operator, who also is the owner of the service, all interview partners are employed by the owner. Most
of them run their business since 4 – 5 years, while some operate already up to 9 – 10 years. Offered
services are desludging of septic tanks. The number of vehicles per operator differs between 1 and 2
and all operators distribute business cards to households for marketing purposes. From October –
December, the highest demand is being recognized. Most customers request for desludging services
between 6am – 6pm. Out of 10, 2 operators stated to also desludge chemical waste from industries
(soft drink company & oil industry). Chemical waste from the oil industry is being disposed by a
Tarangambadi-based operator in a composting unit and waste from the cold drink company by an
operator from Thanjavur near Thirukanur Patti.
Desludging capacities vary from 3,500 – 10,000 liters according to the operator. To reach the customer,
distances of 10 – 40 km are generally being travelled. The desludging processes lasted 3 – 20 min,
dependent on the amount of sludge. Pockets within the town, which are not accessible by the cesspools
available, are Burma Colony and Keelavasal in Thanjavur, Thiruthurai Pundi in Vedaranyam as well as
TVS Company (opposite Road Karaikal), Thirunallaru, Ramakotta Theru and Therkutheru in and around
Tarangambadi. Widths of the access roads ranged during field visits between 1.2 – 6m and the trucks
were parked 1 – 15m apart from the containment unit. Septic tanks without an opening are usually
broken in 3 – 30 min by the operator, using a steel or iron rod. For this service, none of the operators
interviewed claimed to charge extra. Also during accompanied trips, manholes have been opened by
the operator in most cases. After the desludging process is finished, manholes are usually closed by
the operator, but were mostly covered, not sealed. Mostly, vacuum pumps are being used to pump the
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 98
sludge out (a truck mounted sludge pump in 1 case) with a power of 4, 5 or 10 HP. Manufactures are
mostly based in Trichy or Chennai, but also in cuddalaore and Coimbatore and the age of the pumps
range from 20 years – 2 months. Input power source is the oil engine in the majority of the cases and
occasionally the engine shaft or a separate engine. Hosepipes are 8 m up to 25 m long and have a
diameter of 2 – 4 inches. Pump wetted parts are generally out of PVC or rubber and the common
material of the sludge collection pipe is (plastic) rubber. For extended length, pipes are connected with
clamps, couplings or PVC pipes. The life of a pipe lasts about 1 – 7 years according to the interviewed
operators.
If the sludge is very thick and cannot be pumped out, most operators add 100 – 1,000 liters of water
from the household, using a bucket or the pipe. 3 operators, based in Tarangambadi, stated they would
remove the sludge manually in this event. During accompanied trips, suction valves operated easily and
the addition of water was not necessary in most cases.
The amount of sludge remaining in the septic tank mostly depends on the capacity of the containment
unit. Some operators claimed, 1 – 6 inches sludge would remain after desludging and during field visits
it was 0.4 – 3 inches approximately. Masks are only worn by 2 interviewed operators, while the
remaining ones do not wear any protection equipment. Sludge usually does not spill around during the
desludging process and if it occurs, it is discharged in open drains outside the house (4 cases), septic
tanks (3 cases) or vacant land (2 cases). If there is contact with spillage or sludge, workers stated to
wash their hands with water and soap. While desludging observations, spillages have not been an issue
and addition of chemicals to prevent smell never have been recognized. Only in 1 case, the operator
wore a mask for safety reasons, while other operators did not wear any protection equipment. Only 3
operators cleaned themselves after the desludging process and the truck was generally not cleaned
after desludging, however some operators cleaned the pipe.
All covered operators use a strainer at the inlet to the suction pipe, which is getting blocked once up to
more than 4 times per desludging process. During field visits, all suction pipes were equipped with a
strainer and no foreign objects within the sludge were observed. No leakages or blockages have been
noticed. While most operators stated there would be local mechanics available if pump repairing is
required (once a year – twice a month), 4 from Tarangambadi deny this.
Tanks in use hold capacities of 3,500 – 10,000 liters of faecal sludge in 1 – 2 chambers. The sizes of
the containment units, desludged during observed trips varied between 1 x 1 x 1m and 5 x 5 x 3m. The
material of the inner surface of the tank is inconsistent plastic, paint, rubber or steel. Outlet valves are
usually ball valves, installed at heights of 0.6 – 1.2 m above the ground and measure diameters of 3 –
6 inches. The cesspools are manufactured in 1996 – 2016 and generally have only 1 axle (2 in one
case). All vehicles are 2.1 – 2.4 m wide and diesel-fueled (Rs. 50.6 – 57.5 per liter). Mileages range
from 3 – 10 km per liter. During field observations, it was noted that the painting of the tank was new in
5 cases, while the remaining ones were painted with little patches of rust.
Points of disposal are decided based on municipality rules and sometimes according to the operator or
the customer. Time and distance are the most common reasons for non-disposal into treatment plants.
Operators travel distances about 1 – 40 km to reach the desludging points (2 – 15 km during
accompanied trips). Frequent areas are the municipality compost, Pillaiyar Patti bypass and
Mundharithopu in Thanjavur, Sannathi Street in Vedaranyam as well as Karaikal compost, Pravapettai
Karaikal and the Karaikal solid waste disposal plant in Tarangambadi. 1 operator stated to be rewarded
with Rs. 200 by the farm owner, if he travels long distances to dispose the sludge at the farm land.
Problems during sludge disposal occur mostly in the months of October – December. Vehicles are being
cleaned in periodic intervals every 1 – 6 months. In 1 case, leakages from the valve during transportation
were noticed, however during the remaining trips no leakages haven been recognized. In all cases,
faecal sludge have been disposed into vacant lands. The process took 1 – 3 min and in 1 case up to 12
min.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 99
Operators stated, a number of 2 – 5 workers per vehicle would be required to carry out the service.
Payment takes place on daily (Rs. 300 for drivers/ Rs. 200 – 300 for helpers), on monthly basis (Rs.
7,500 – 15,000 for drivers/ Rs. 7,500 – 9,000 for helpers) or per trip (Rs. 150 – 700 for drivers/ Rs. 100
for helpers). In 2 cases, tips or fees for breaking the manhole are other sources of income for the workers
(Rs. 50/ Rs. 2,000 per month). On average, operators carry out 2 – 5 trips a day, adding up to 60 – 150
trips per month. The costs of desludging range from Rs. 700 – 3,500.
During accompanied trips, the price was negotiated in different manners: based on distance and sludge
amount, sludge type or thickness of sludge or based on fixed rates and ranged from Rs. 1,200 – 3,500.
Investment costs for the cesspool account for Rs. 1.5 – 16 lakh, Rs. 2,500 – 5 lakh for a pump, Rs.
6,000 – 20,000 for a desludging pump and Rs. 5,000 – 7 lakh for fitting the tank and other accessories.
For maintenance of the vehicle Rs. 2,000 – 2 lakh as well as Rs. 2,000 – 50,000 for the pump are being
paid by the service providers. Major maintenance issues lie in the pump (due to heavy load) but also in
the cylinder, engine and clutch, according to the operators and occur once in a month to 5 times per
year. For repairing, service providers have to wait 30 min – 4 days and pay amounts ranging from Rs.
200 – 15,000.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 101
Annexure 5: Reuse A5.1. Reuse description zone wise
A5.1.1. Western Zone
In the western zone, 7 interviews have been conducted among farmers from Erode as shown in Figure
3.44; (3), Bhavani (2) and Jambai (2). Common practice among farmers is surface irrigation. Fresh
water is supplied on tapioca, banana, sugar cane and corn from bore wells as well as from open wells.
Water is available throughout the year, mostly for 1 – 4 hours and in some cases for 8 – 10 hours. All
interviewed farmers stated pumping would be required for availing irrigation water. Furthermore, they
agree that there are no subsidies available for irrigation water. Pastambas, potassium, urea and cow
dung are being used as fertilizers, leading to costs of Rs. 300 – 900 per farmer. Usually, fertilizers are
mixed with soil manually.
None of the interviewed farmers claim to use wastewater for irrigation purpose, while 4 out of 7 farmers
use faecal sludge as a soil conditioner, supplied by private desludging operators. The sludge is either
dry (2 cases) or fresh (2 cases). It is supplied to the soil for either 3 days or 1 month after arrival or
during cultivation. In general, no charges are paid either for availing faecal sludge or for disposal.
Farmers do not encounter an increase in mosquitos due to faecal sludge; also no pesticides are being
used to avoid mosquitoes and other pests. Farmers do not face any restrictions from any government
body/ organization towards the use of faecal sludge for agricultural purpose.
A5.1.2. High Rainfall Zone
6 farmers have been interviewed in this zone, 2 respectively from Agasthipuram, Kanyakumari and
Nagercoil. All farmers practice surface irrigation. Fresh water is used for irrigation of ladyfinger, banana,
mango, coconut and rice. In most cases it is supplied from canals and in some cases from bore wells
without any related costs. 3 farmers state fresh water would be available throughout the year for 1.5 –
5 hours per day. The remaining 3 farmers face problems of freshwater supply during summer seasons.
Farmers using bore wells require pumps for availing the irrigation water and 1 of these stated to pay
Rs. 100 for electricity related to water supply. All farmers agree there would be no subsidy available
for irrigation water. As fertilizers, farmers use cow and goat dung, urea and potassium, which are being
manually mixed with soil. The fertilizers cost around Rs. 300 – 4,500.
2 out of 6 farmers state to also use wastewater for irrigation of banana and coconut, due to its high
nutrient value as shown in Figure 36. Sources of wastewater are own septic tanks/ soak pits/ pits. Both
farmers did not report any cases of water borne related diseases within their households and did not
receive any complaints regarding the quality of crops. Furthermore, farmers do not face any restrictions
from any government body/ organization towards the use of wastewater for irrigation.
Only 1 farmer uses dry faecal sludge as a soil conditioner for coconut, banana and leaves as shown in
Figure 14. The sludge is being applied 1 month after the arrival of the sludge by a private desludging
operator, for which the farmer pays Rs. 50. The farmer did not recognize any mosquitoes breeding due
to faecal sludge, although he does not use any pesticide to avoid mosquitoes and other pests. No
complaints regarding the quality of crops have been stated and as per the farmer there are no
restrictions from any government body/ organization towards the use of faecal sludge or agricultural
purpose.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 102
A5.1.3. Hilly Zone
A number of 8 farmers have been interviewed in the hilly zone, 3 of them from Naduvattam and Kotagiri
respectively and another 2 from Udhagamandalam. Fresh water for irrigation is used for carrots,
cabbage, beetroot, potatoes, cauliflower, radish, beans and white onions. Water is supplied from bore
wells or open wells and in 2 cases, rain water is being used. Water availability lasts for 15 minutes – 3
hours a day. 5 farmers claim, freshwater would not be available during the whole year but that there
would be problems in summer season. 4 are practicing surface irrigation, while 3 use sprinklers. Most
farmers claim, pumping would be required for availing irrigation water and 1 farmer specified the
amount of electricity cost required for water supply to account for Rs. 1,200. Another farmer mentioned
there would be a subsidy of Rs. 30 available for irrigation water. As a fertilizer, the farmers use urea,
potassium, TAP, M45 and compost as well as cow and goat dung, which is manually mixed with soil.
Costs for fertilizers account usually for Rs. 300 – 650 and in 1 case for Rs. 40,000 – 50,000.
None of the interviewed farmers stated to use any wastewater for irrigation purposes and only 1 farmer
uses dry faecal sludge as a soil conditioner to grow potatoes and cabbage. The sludge is disposed
during cultivation of crops by the head of the household. There are no mosquitos breeding due to faecal
sludge and no pesticides are being used to avoid mosquitoes and other pests. The farmer did not
receive any complaints regarding the quality of crops and vegetables and he does not face any
restrictions from government bodies/ organizations towards the use of faecal sludge or agricultural
purpose.
A5.1.4. North East Zone
5 farmers have been interviewed in this zone, 2 in Vellore and Kanchipuram respectively and 1 in
Sriperumbudur. All covered farmers practice surface irrigation but use a different source of fresh water
supply for irrigation: lake and canal water, water from open wells and rain water. One farmer states not
to use any fresh water but only treated wastewater. Farmers using water from lakes, canals and open
wells for irrigation state this would be available throughout the year, while others face seasonal
difficulties in water supply. The farmer using water from an open well requires pumping for availing
irrigation water. While most farmers do not pay for the water supplied for irrigation, one farmer (using
rain water), pays Rs. 100 for electricity required for water supply. All farmers agree there would be no
subsidy available for irrigation water. Ground nut and rice are the crops yielded with freshwater.
Potassium and urea are usually being used as fertilizers, which are manually mixed with soil and cost
Rs. 300 – 5,000.
4 out of 5 farmers claim to use wastewater from STP outlets for irrigation due to a lack of freshwater
and/ or because of its high nutrient value. There would be no restrictions from any government body/
organization towards the use of wastewater for irrigation. The wastewater is either supplied from the
private sector (2 farmers) or the municipality (1 farmer). None of the farmers pay any charge for the
wastewater or for pumping involved in irrigation wastewater or require any transportation to avail
wastewater. Sugarcane, groundnut and rice are the crops being irrigated with wastewater. One of the
farmers claimed a family member suffered from cholera, while the others did not report any waterborne
related diseases. Problems regarding the quality of crops are bacterial occurrence that and makes the
crops look old.
3 out of 5 farmers use faecal sludge as soil conditioner for sugar cane, which is applied 1 week after
the arrival of the sludge without the use of any equipment. 1 farmer states the faecal sludge would be
poured in the ground and drains and flows automatically in cultivated land. Suppliers are cesspool
operators. In 1 case the sludge is fresh and directly discharged from the cesspool and in 1 other case,
the sludge is dried. In general, neither charges are being paid for availing faecal sludge nor does the
disposer pay any fees. An increasing amount of mosquitos due to faecal sludge have not been
recognized by the famers although, no pesticides are being used to avoid mosquitoes and other pests.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 103
Farmers do not face restrictions from any government body/ organization towards the use of faecal
sludge or agricultural purpose.
A5.1.5. North West Zone
A sum of 6 interviews with farmers in this zone have been conducted, 2 respectively in Sankari, Salem
and Edappadi. All covered farmers practice surface irrigation. Freshwater is being used for the
irrigation of rice, groundnut, corn and brinjal. Sources of freshwater supply for irrigation are bore wells,
open wells and rain water. Freshwater is available throughout the year for 1 – 5 hours. Most farmers
claim, pumping would be required for availing irrigation water, one of them specifying the costs being
Rs. 300 for electricity related to water supply. All interviewed farmers agree not to pay any amount for
irrigation water and that there would not be a subsidy available for the same. Urea, potassium, cow
dung and TP are manually mixed with the soil and used as fertilizer. The costs for fertilizer account for
Rs. 300 – 980 per farmer. 2 out of 6 farmers claim not to use any kind of fertilizer.
Furthermore, 1 half of the participating farmers also use wastewater for irrigation of rice, corn and
leaves due to its high nutrient value and a lack of freshwater. Wastewater is usually from own sources
and conveyed by private companies (2 cases) or by the farmers themselves (1 case). No waterborne
related diseases have been noted among the farmer’s families, neither did they receive any complaints
regarding the quality of crops/ vegetables. As per the farmers, there are no restrictions from any
government body/ organization regarding the use of wastewater for irrigation.
2 out of 6 farmers use faecal sludge as a soil conditioner for growing banana and coconut. It is being
supplied to the soil during cultivation and disposed by private desludging operators. Farmers neither
pay for availing faecal sludge nor do they receive any amount of money from the disposer. None of the
interviewed farmers recognized any mosquitoes breeding due to faecal sludge although they do not
use any pesticide to avoid mosquitoes and other pests. No complaints regarding the quality of crops
have been noted.
A5.1.6. South Zone
4 interviews with farmers have been conducted to detect reuse practices in the southern zone (2 in
Thootikudi and Kovilpatti respectively). Banana plants, mango trees as well as rice are being irrigated
with freshwater, which is supplied from bore wells (2) and/ or open wells (2) or use rain water (1). None
of the interviewed farmers stated to receive water throughout the year. Problems of fresh water supply
mainly occur during summer season. The farmers based in Thootikudi practice drip, while farmers from
Kovilpatti do surface irrigation. In the case of supplying water through wells, pumping is required for
availing irrigation water, though no farmer pays either for electricity required for water supply nor for
the water supplied for irrigation. There are no subsidies available for irrigation water. Urea, potassium,
TAP as well as cow or goat dung is fertilizers used for farming. To apply it at cultivated land, the
fertilizers are usually mixed manually with soil. For urea, potassium and TAP, farmers pay on average
Rs. 2,400 – 6,000, for goat dung Rs. 2,000 and for cow dung Rs. 15,000.
3 of 4 farmers use wastewater for irrigation of banana trees and rice, either due to a lack of freshwater
or because of its high nutrient value. Sources of wastewater are the farmer’s own septic tanks/ soak
pits/ pits as well as grey water from washing and cleaning. None of the interviewed farmers stated there
would be any case of water borne related diseases among their household members. Also there would
be no restrictions from any government body/ organization towards the use of wastewater for irrigation.
No complaints have been received regarding the quality of crops and farmers stated there would be no
restrictions from any government body/ organization towards the use of wastewater for irrigation. None
of the interviewed farmers in the southern zone use faecal sludge as a soil conditioner.
Draft. To be Cited with Authors’ Permission
Tamil Nadu State Baseline Study: Technical Assessment of Sanitation Chain | January 2017 104
A5.1.7. Cauvery Delta Zone
In the delta zone, 7 interviews have
been conducted with farmers from
Vedaranyam (3), Thanjavur (2) and
Karaikal (2), 3 of them practicing
surface irrigation. The farmers
supply fresh water for irrigation from
various sources: bore wells, rain
water and salt water. 2 of these
farmers, supplying water from bore
wells, report water would be
available throughout the year for 3 –
6 hours a day. 1 farmer, using water
from a bore well, stated pumping
would be required for availing
irrigation water. Electricity costs
required for water supply as well as
costs for water supply are not
specified from any interviewed
farmer. Generally, there would be no
subsidy available for irrigation water.
Banana, rice and sugarcane are
crops that are being irrigated with fresh water. Common fertilizers are potassium and urea which is
manually mixed with soil. Costs for fertilizers account for Rs. 2,000 – 15,000. Figure 37 shows the
farmer being interviewed 5 out of 7 interviewed farmer’s state to also use wastewater for irrigation of
banana rice, coconut and bamboo due to its high nutrient value or because of a lack of freshwater.
Sources are either own septic tanks/ soak pits/ pits or municipal sewers. 1 farmer states pumping of
irrigation wastewater would lead to costs of Rs. 500. None of the farmers claimed there would be water
borne related diseases apparent among his family members. Furthermore, no complaints have been
received regarding the quality of crops. In general, there would be no restrictions from any government
body/ organization towards the use of wastewater for irrigation.
2 farmers use faecal sludge as a soil conditioner for growing grass for cows as well as for rice and
green leaves. For growing grass, dried sludge is being applied during cultivation, while for rice; fresh
sludge is applied 3 months after the sludge arrival. The sludge disposed by private desludging
operators, who are not paid for their service nor are they paying the farmers. Farmers do not recognize
any mosquito breeding due to faecal sludge, although no pesticides are being used to avoid mosquitoes
and other pests. No equipment is used while using faecal sludge as soil conditioner and no complaints
regarding the quality of crops have been noted. Famers stated there would be no restrictions from any
government body/ organization towards the use of faecal sludge or agricultural purpose.
Figure A5. 1: Farmers Interview Conducted by Our Team
Members at Cauvery Delta Zone
Source: TNUSSP Primary Study, 2016
IIHS CHENNAI: Floor 7A, Chaitanya Exotica, 24/51, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600017.
044-6630 5500 [email protected] www.tnussp.co.in www.facebook.com/TNUSSP
Tamil Nadu Urban Sanitation
Support Programme (TNUSSP)
supports the Government of
Tamil Nadu and cities in making
improvements along the entire
urban sanitation chain.
The TNUSSP is implemented by a
consortium of organisations led by
the Indian Institute for Human
Settlements (IIHS), in association
with CDD Society, Gramalaya and
Keystone Foundation.