Wsp nepal

571 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
571
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wsp nepal

  1. 1. Sudan  Raj  Panthi  (PhD)  Department  of  Water  Supply  and  Sewerage   Kathmandu,  Nepal  
  2. 2. ¡  Area  147,000  Sq  Km  ¡  Population  26.6  million  ¡  Drinking  water  coverage  80  %  ¡  Sanitation  Coverage   Ø  Based  on  having  toilet  or  ODF  (Open  defecation  Free)  -­‐  50  %   Ø  ODF-­‐  districts  2  out  of  75   Ø  ODF  –VDCs  235  out  of  4000  ¡  Total  Water  Supply  Schemes  =  37,000  ¡  Only  200  projects  have  population  >5000  ¡  Only  150  projects  have  treatment  facilities  ¡  80  %  project  sources  are  spring    ¡  National  drinking  water  standard  (2005)   § 2
  3. 3. Parameter   Unit   Max  Limit  /Limit   National DrinkingTurbidity   NTU 5 (10)* Water QualityTDS   Mg/L   1000 Standards, 2005Iron   Mg/L   0.3 (3.0)*Manganese   Mg/L   0.2Arsenic   Mg/L   0.05Chromium   Mg/L   0.05Flu0ride   Mg/L   0.5 – 1.5Lead   Mg/L   0.01Ammonia   Mg/L   1.5Nitrate   Mg/L   50Total  Hardness   Mg/L  as  CaCO3   500Residual  Chlorine   Mg/L   0.1 - 0.2Total  Coliform   MPN/100  mL   0 (in 95 % tests)E.  Coli   MPN/100  mL   0 ( )* If there is no alternate source § 3
  4. 4. ¡  The  water  suppliers  should  submit  a  water   quality  improvement  programs(WQIP)    to   the  concerned  ministry  and  MoPH    ¡  It  is  mandatory  upon  service  providers  to   implement  those  programs,  from  second   year  of  approval  of  such  programs  by  the   concerned  ministries    ¡  WQIP  è  WSP   § 4
  5. 5. ¡  A management tool to achieve health based target of water supply schemes¡  An effective means of consistently ensuring the safety of drinking water¡  A series of works on risk assessment followed by risk management, from catchment to consumer¡  A variety of interventions at the level of households, community, water supplier and regulator, often with an excellent cost-benefit ratio¡  A correction of sanitary negligence § 5
  6. 6. § 6
  7. 7. Hand book Guideline § 7
  8. 8. Team1 Formation ¡  5-­‐7  members  with  one   team  leader     ¡  Define  roles  and   responsibility     ¡  Orient  the  team  for  WSP   § 80
  9. 9. Team Formation System Assessment 2¡  Understand  the  Project   Components    ¡  Prepare  Social  Map    ¡  Prepare  Flow  Chart   § 11
  10. 10. § 12
  11. 11. Team SystemFormation Assessment Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis 3 § 13
  12. 12. TeamFormation System Assessment Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis Control Measures 4 § 14
  13. 13. Hazard point or process Risk score Control measures (1 to 4)Source and CatchmentsØ Flood entering to the intake 4 Diversion channelReservoirsØ No fencing 3 Do fencingØ Damaged Manhole cover 4 Repair / Replace itPipe linesØ Leak near School 4 RepairTap stands and users areaØ Damaged platform 2 Repair § 15
  14. 14. Team Formation System Assessment Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis¡  Urgent  Correction   with  Priority  ¡  Long  Term   Control Measures Correction  ¡  Supporting   Program   5 Support & Correction § 16
  15. 15. Team Formation System Assessment Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis Control Measures 6 Urgent CorrectionMonitoring Plan § 17
  16. 16. What to monitor? Who monitors? When to monitor (frequency)? 1. Govinda BK ( staff) Once in two monthsa) Identification of places 2. Kamal Narayanfrom where flood may enter 3. Krishna Kattelb) Identification of entry pointof pollutionOpen wash out valve to flush 1.Raghupati KC ( staff) Twice in a monththe treatment units 2. Krishna B. Devkota 3. Balaram Shrestha § 18
  17. 17. Team Formation System Assessment Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis Control Measures 7Validation Urgent Correction Monitoring Plan § 19
  18. 18. Team Formation System Assessment Hazard Identification and Risk Analysis 8Verification Control Measures Validation Urgent Correction Monitoring Plan § 20
  19. 19.  Confirming  that  a  product   or  service  meets  the  needs   of  its  users     21
  20. 20. Validation of Treatment Units (case study) TSS = 500 TSS = 100 TSS = 20 Tu=2000 Tu=1400 Tu=50 TSS = 0 CF=352 CF=320 CF=52 Tu=<1 CF=0 RVT GC/PST RF SSF FRC (Cl2 )= Cl2 = 1mg/l 0.2 mg/l FRC (Cl2 )= 0.1 mg/l T#200 T#300 T# 300 T# 500TSS in mg/LTu in NTUCF in CFU per 100 mL
  21. 21. Team Formation System Assessment 9 Hazard IdentificationUser’s Satisfaction and Risk Analysis Verification Control Measures Validation Urgent Correction Monitoring Plan 23
  22. 22. 10 Team Formation System Assessment Documentation ? Hazard IdentificationUser’s satisfaction and Risk Analysis Verification Control Measures Validation Urgent Correction Monitoring Plan 24
  23. 23. ¡ Resource  management   § Budget   ▪  Foreign    Supports  (WHO,  UN-­‐Habitat,  UNICEF  etc.)   ▪  National  (DWSS,  DOLIDAR  etc.)   ▪  Local  (Project’s)   § Equipments  (Microbial  Test-­‐kit)   § Manpower  (WSP  Training  for  200  Engineers)    ¡ Advocacy  (National  Workshop,  Awareness                    Program)   § 246
  24. 24. ¡  Type of projects taken for WSP §  Hand Pump/Shallow Tube Wells §  Rural Water Supply Projects §  Urban / Semi-urban Water Supply Projects¡  Organizations started to work on WSP §  DWSS/ WHO/ UN Habitat §  NEWAH / Water Aid §  ENPHO §  Centre for Integrated Urban Development (CIUD) §  Municipal Association of Nepal (MuAN) §  Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, WN & RVWRMP § 27
  25. 25. From 2006 to 2009¡  Shallow Tube Well – 1 Cluster¡  Pilot projects in 12 rural setting¡  Pilot projects in 5 urban settingIn 2010/2011¡  22 Projects in rural setting¡  20 Projects in Urban Settings¡  150 Projects (@ 2 # per district)For 2011/12§  150 Projects (@ 2 # per district)§  10 Projects in Urban settings§  WHO/AusAid Project III Phase § 28
  26. 26. § 29
  27. 27. § 30
  28. 28. § 31
  29. 29. Critical Points § 32
  30. 30. Critical Points § 33
  31. 31.  Control  of  Leakage           (Itahari)   34
  32. 32. BEFORE  WSP   AFTER  WSP   § 33
  33. 33. BEFORE-­‐  WSP   AFTER-­‐  WSP   36
  34. 34. Name  of  the   District   E-­‐coli  per  100  mL   Sample  project   point   Before   After   WSP   WSP  Sanopatiyani   Chitawan   150   0   RVT   100   0   Tap  Jante   Morang   150   26   Tap   120   2   Source  Gahate   Nuwakot   90   0   RVT  Bhyagute   95   0   Tap  Motipur   Kapilbastu   65   0   Deep  Well   95   5   Tap  Deurali   Kaski   300   0   RVT   60   0   Pipeline   37
  35. 35. ¡  If source is good, that doesn’t mean the scheme doesn’t need WSP¡  Different approaches to undertake the WSP¡  WSPapproach doesn’t expect big amount of money but can save money¡  WSP team must have adequate experience and expertise¡  Lessons should learnt from case studies § 38

×