Sanitation Status in India in 80’sSanitation Status in India in 80’sDuring launching of the International Drinking Water

Supply and Sanitation Decade programme in India (1981-1990), sanitation status was reported to be dismal.

Urban sanitation coverage was hardly 26.9% and rural coverage was negligible and as low as 0.5% in 1981.

In last 3 decades, as reported in census 2011, the urban coverage has increased to 81.4% and rural sanitation to 30.7%.

Decade Targets for Sanitation ServiceDecade Targets for Sanitation ServiceThe decade targets for improving sanitation services were to be reached by March 1991.

Urban Sanitation:Class-I cities must be provided with sewerage and sewage treatment facilities. In fringe areas provides community toilets. Areas where sewerage system is not possible provide low cost sanitation.

Rural Sanitation:Simple sanitary latrines will be used. Small per capita cash provision could be made as an incentive for the construction of sanitary latrines.

Sector Category Coverage Level of serviceUrban Sanitation 80% 100% coverage for class-I cities with sewerage &

sewage treatment facilities; low cost sanitation methods in other towns. Overall coverage of 80% in all cities and towns.

Rural Sanitation 25% Low cost sanitary methods of disposal

Sanitation Situation in Sanitation Situation in IndiaIndia

Availability of Toilets for Households in India – Rural and Urban 2008-2009

Type of Toilets used by Households in India- Rural and Urban 2008-2009

Source: NSS 65th Round, Report No. 535: Housing Condition and Amenities in India: July, 2008-June, 2009 (Nov 2010)

Location Without Toilets

Pit Latrine

Septic Tank/Flush Latrine

Service others Total

Total 49% 12% 35% 1.40% 1.20% 99%

Rural 65% 14% 18% 1% 1% 99%

Urban 11% 8% 77% 1.60% 1% 99%

Location Without Toilets

Exclusive (own) Use

Shared Public/Community

Total

Total 49% 37% 11% 3% 100%

Rural 65% 28% 6% 1% 100%

Urban 11% 58% 24% 6.50% 100%

Type of Latrine (Census of India 2011)Type of Latrine (Census of India 2011)Type of Latrine Facility India (246,692,667) Rural

(167,826,730)Urban (78,865,937)

Piped sewer system 11.9 2.2 32.7

Septic tank 22.2 14.7 38.2

Other system 2.3 2.5 1.7

With slab/ventilated improved pit

7.6 8.2 6.4

Without slab/open pit 1.8 2.3 0.7

Night soil disposed into open drain

0.5 0.2 1.2

Night soil removed by human

0.3 0.3 0.3

Night soil serviced by animals

0.2 0.2 0.2

Public latrine 3.2 1.9 6.0

Open 49.8 67.3 12.6

According to JMP report 2012:Globally, 63% of the population use improved sanitation

facilities. In 2010, an estimated 2.5 billion people were still without

improved sanitation.Sanitation coverage in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa

are 41% and 30 % respectively. 1.1 billion people- 15% of the world’s population- still resort

to open defecation. Open defecation is highest in rural areas of southern Asia,

where it is practiced by 55 per cent of the population.Globally, 79 % of the urban population use an improved

sanitation facility, compared to 47 % of the rural population.

World Scenario in Sanitation World Scenario in Sanitation

Sanitation TechnologiesSanitation TechnologiesThe sanitation technologies are classified into two parts based on the basis of disposal site. First is On-site in which waste is finally disposed or treated on the site itself. Second is Off-site in which the waste is carried to some other place for the final disposal or treatment.The off-site technology covers sewerage system, dry latrines removed by bucket, truck, human beings etc.The Off-site technology has many constraints.

Generic classification of sanitation systemGeneric classification of sanitation system

On-site

Dry WetOverhanging Pour flush (PF) latrine, soakaway

Trench latrine PF latrine, aquaprivy, soakaway

Pit latrine PF latrine, septic tank, vault

Reed Odorless Earth Closet (ROEC) Sullage-flush, aquaprivy, soakaway

Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine Sullage-flush, septic tank, soakaway

Batch composting latrine Convention septic tank

Continuous composting latrine

Generic classification of sanitation system Generic classification of sanitation system Contd.Contd.

On-site or off-site

Off-site

WET WET DRY

Low-volume cistern-flush, soakaway, or sewer

Conventional sewerage

Vault and vacuum tank

Low-volume cistern-flush, aquaprivy, soakaway, or sewer

Vault, manual removal, truck, or cart

Low-volume cistern-flush, septic tank, soakaway, or sewer

Bucket latrine (manual removal)

Mechanical bucket latrine

Current sewerage system in Urban AreasCurrent sewerage system in Urban Areas

In Urban India, safe disposal of human excreta is the biggest challenge.

A 2009 study of 498 class I and 410 II towns reported that while sewage generated was more than 38,000 MLD (million litres per day), treatment capacities were only about 12,000 MLD- 31% of generation. (Central Pollution Control Board, 2009).

39% of the treatment plants did not confirm to discharge standards into water bodies.

Only 13.5% of the sewage from Indian cities is treated.In 12 metropolitan cities like Bangalore, Amritsar, Meerut,

Kochi, Coimbatore etc. there are no sewerage treatment plants.

Most of cities have primary treatment facilities.

Constraints Constraints To achieve sustainable sanitation, more areas need to be covered under well maintained piped sewerage systems. But there are some constraints in achieving the piped sewerage system. some of them are:Water ShortageLack of operation and maintenance Lack of fundsLack of knowledge about nonconventional sanitation technologiesWeak institutions with trained personel

Water ShortageWater ShortageMinimum 130 lpcd (Per Capita Water Supply) is required

to sustain the sewer system in the area. Large number of class-I cities in India do not have

minimum per capita water supply to sustain the sewerage system.

With decrease in fresh water availability, most of the urban and even rural areas are facing crisis during dry months.

Lack of Operation and Maintanance Lack of Operation and Maintanance The existing treatment capacity is also not effectively

utilized due to operation and maintenance problem.Some treatment plants are underutilized and some are

overloaded.Actual sewerage treatment due to inadequacy of the

sewerage collection system shall be low compare to capacity.

Nearly most of the treatment plants are not conforming to the general standards prescribed under the Environmental (Protection) Rules for discharge into streams.

Lack of FundLack of FundAccording to census 2011, only 11.9% of total households are

covered under piped sewer system. To cover whole country in sewerage system a huge investment of money will be required.

Per capita investment costs for sewerage systems ranges between Rs 20,000 to 50,000, an amount totally beyond the ability of the beneficiaries to pay and even investment agencies to sustain.

Any technology whose total financial cost is more than 10-20 percent of user income probably should be excluded as financially unaffordable.

The cost for excavation and pipe will be more in rocky area for conventional technologies as comparison to nonconventional technologies.

Lack of Knowledge of Nonconventional Lack of Knowledge of Nonconventional sanitation technologiessanitation technologies

First priority of excreta disposal programs in developing countries must be human health, that is, the reduction and eventual elimination of the transmission of excreta related diseases. This health objectives can be fully achieved by nonconventional sanitation technologies that are much cheaper than sewerage system.

Lack of interest in sanitation technologies other than sewerage is in part because of the standardized education of most planners and engineers in developing countries.

People do not know more about the nonconventional sanitation technologies.

Planners feel they have to press for sewerage because without it public health will not be secure.

Weak Institutions with Weak Institutions with trained personneltrained personnel

Most municipalities have difficulty in attracting and retaining well-trained staff.

STPs are usually run by personals that do not have adequate knowledge of running the STPs and know only operation of pumps and motors.

Consequences of lack of Consequences of lack of sewerage system sewerage system

Thus, untreated and partially treated municipal waste water finds its way into water sources such as rivers, lakes and ground water, causing water pollution.

Organic matter and bacterial population of fecal origin continue to dominate the water pollution problem- mean levels of biological oxygen demand have increased in six of the 18 major rivers accounting for 46% of the total river length nationally.

Ground water is also polluted due to discharge of untreated sewage.

Septic tanks are also big problem in achieving sustainable sanitation target.

Majority of the septic tanks had openings into open drains, which drained the liquid effluents from the septic tanks. This also leads to a high probability of ground water pollution.

Septic tank requires more space.The construction needs regular technical assistance and

supervision.This needs ventilation, which adds to cost.Desludging of Septic tank is needed on regular basis. The

sludge and effluent from a septic tank can not be used as a fertilizer straight away without causing health hazards.

In some areas septic tank toilets are within 10 meters distance from water sources causing pollution.

Majority of masons, without knowledge of safer technologies, opt for septic tanks.

Septic tankSeptic tank

Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (DEWATS)Systems (DEWATS)

DEWATS, is an on-site technology, provides treatment for wastewater flows from 1-500 m3 per day, from both domestic and industrial sources.

DEWATS is based on four treatment systems: Sedimentation and primary treatment in sedimentation

ponds, septic tanks or Imhoff tanks Secondary anaerobic treatment in fixed bed filters or baffled

septic tanks (baffled reactors) Secondary and tertiary aerobic/anaerobic treatment in

constructed wetlands (subsurface flow filters) Secondary and tertiary aerobic/anaerobic treatment in

ponds.The above four systems are combined in accordance with the

wastewater influent and the required effluent quality.

Pros and Cons of DEWATSPros and Cons of DEWATSType Kind of

treatment

Used for type of wastewater

Advantages Disadvantages

Aerobic pond

Aerobic degradation, pathogen removal

Weak, mostly pre-treated wastewater from domestic and industrial sources

Simple in construction, reliable in performance if proper dimensioned, high pathogen removal rate, can be used to create an almost natural environment, fish farming possible when large in size and low loaded

Large permanent space requirement, mosquitoes and odour can become a nuisance if undersized, algae can raise effluent BOD

Anaerobic filter

Anaerobic degradation of suspened and dissolved solids

Pre-settled domestic and industrial wastewater or narrow COD/BOD ratio

Simple and fairly durable if well constructed and wastewater has been properly pre-treated, high treatment efficiency, little permanent space required because of being underground.

Costly in construction because of special filter material, blockage of filter possible, effluent smells slightly despite high treatment efficiency

Type Kind of treatment

Used for type of wastewater

Advantages Disadvantages

Horizontal gravel filter

Aerobic facultative -anaerobic degradation of dissolved and fine suspended solids, pathogen removal

Suitable for domestic and weak industrial wastewater where settleable solids and most suspended solids already removed by pre-treatment

High treatment efficiency when properly constructed, pleasant landscaping possible, no wastewater above ground, can be cheap in construction if filter material is available at site, no nuisance of odour

High permanent space requirement, costly if right quality of gravel is not available, great knowledge and care required during construction, intensive maintenance and supervision during first 1-2 years.

Anaerobic pond

Sedimentation, anaerobic degradation and sludge stabilisation

Strong and medium industrial wastewater

Simple in construction, flexible in respect to degree of treatment, little maintenance

Wastewater pond occupies open land, there is always some odour, can even be stinky, mosquitoes are difficult to control

Pros and Cons of DEWATS contd.Pros and Cons of DEWATS contd.

Type Kind of treatment

Used for type of wastewater

Advantages Disadvantages

Baffled septic tank

Anaerobic degradation of suspended and dissolved solids

Pre-settled domestic and industrial wastewater of narrow COD/BOD ratio, suitable for strong industrial wastewater

Simple and durable, high treatment efficiency, little permanent space required because of being underground, hardly any blockage, relatively cheap compared to anaerobic filter

Requires larger space for construction, less efficient with weak wastewater, longer start –up phase than anaerobic filter

Imhoff tank Sedimentation, sludge stabilisation

Wastewater of settleable solids especially domestic

Durable, little space because of being underground, odourless effluent

Less simple than septic tank, needs very regular desludging

Pros and Cons of DEWATS contd.Pros and Cons of DEWATS contd.

Sulabh two-pit, pour-flush, Sulabh two-pit, pour-flush, compost toiletcompost toilet

In the Sulabh toilets there are two pits, one used at a time and the other is kept as standby. When the first pit fills up, the excreta is switched over to the other one.

Both the pits are used alternately. In the first pit after a period of two years, human excreta gets converted into manure.

Sulabh Toilet with circular pits.

On-site Technology for Sustainable SanitationOn-site Technology for Sustainable Sanitation

• As water-seal or trap used in a Sulabh toilet is of 12-20 millimetres, therefore it requires only 1-1.5 litre of water to flush per use. So it saves enormous quantity of water compared to sewerage or septic tank systems where-in 10 litres of water is used for flushing per use.

Water-seal or P -trap of Sulabh toiletWater-seal or P -trap of Sulabh toilet

Advantages of Sulabh two-pit, pour flush, Advantages of Sulabh two-pit, pour flush, compost toiletcompost toilet

•Sulabh two-pit, pour flush, compost toilet is eco-friendly, cost- effective, technically appropriate, indigenous and socio-culturally acceptable.

•Sulabh two-pit, pour flush, compost toilet fulfills all the seven conditions of a sanitary latrine laid down in the WHO book- Excreta Disposal for Rural Areas and Small Communities. (by E.G. Wagner & J.N. Lanoix, WHO, 1958).

•Because of the presence of small quantity of gases inside the pits, the gases in contact with water in the water-seal, do not allow the water to freeze during winters. In 1984, in Srinagar, India, temperature went down to -140C and all the Sulabh toilets functioned very well whereas septic tanks and sewerage pipelines got frozen.

Recycling and Reuse of Human WasteRecycling and Reuse of Human Waste

• Recycling and reuse of human excreta for biogas generation is an important way to get rid of health hazards from human excreta.• Sulabh International

developed technology for recycling of human excreta through biogas generation and on-site treatment of effluents for safe reuse without health or environmental risk.• Biogas produced is being used

for different purposes e.g. cooking, lighting, electricity generation and body warming.

Sulabh Effluent Treatment (SET) SystemSulabh Effluent Treatment (SET) System

• The effluent discharged from public toilet, after treatment, becomes so pure that its Biochemical Oxygen Demand is less than ten milligram per litre.

•This water is safe for discharge into rivers or water bodies, without polluting them. Hence, this also prevents pollution from the sewage. It can also be used for cleaning of floors of public toilets.

• Both these technologies are suitable for market places, housing colonies, high-rise buildings, public places, schools, colleges, hospitals etc.

Sulabh Effluent Treatment (SET) SystemSulabh Effluent Treatment (SET) System

Thank You