SuSanA - Forum Kunena Site Syndication Sun, 29 May 2016 00:00:19 +0000 Kunena 1.6 SuSanA - Forum en-gb Re: FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: ZachWhite
From what I know of the ESI methodology the costs account for three main cost component; the CapEx, OpEx, and CapManEx of that technology type.

The data that Guy and Mili used for the study was all from the published literature (of which there is very little). This introduces some uncertainty into interpreting the figures as you are forced to extrapolate national estimates from whatever is published, and as is well known costs are highly context specific and can even vary considerably depending on what combination of technologies are used in a chain, scale, and so on... The other challenge with secondary data is often that projects do not neatly record their costs in cost classifications, meaning to get comparable figures across studies one has to estimate some of the different cost components for studies in which they are not published (this may be why only capital costs are presented for the cross-county comparisons).

Once you have the cost data adjusted as described above the methodology looks something like this:

i) define the parameters of the technology (lifespan, time until CapManEx is needed, software costs as a % of hardware costs (n.b. usually more for FSM), CapManEx costs, Operation costs)

ii) Choose a combination of technologies to form a sanitation chain.

iii) Set the parameters of the economic analysis (choose a discount rate (they use 5% with a range of 3-8% for the sensitivity analysis, socio-economic data (e.g. HH size), etc)

iv) Calculate the annualised cost of a particular technology combination.

As you note they only present the capital costs in this table, but it is not clear if these are annualised (i.e. take into account the lifespan) or not. Annex D of the paper show the cost studies used. the figures for Nepal must be somewhere in the papers cited there (if you really want to go digging).

I'd be interested to hear if you find anything!


Faecal sludge management Mon, 16 May 2016 09:14:49 +0000
Re: FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: kharallaxman
Thanks. It's nice to receive these information, and to hear from you having watched your interesting videos. I will revert in case I may have any queries or remarks later. Regards, Laxman.

The Costs of Meeting SDG targets - Guy H and Mili V, Jan 2016, WB WSP.

Regarding the per capita cost, I found the above document. For Nepal the per capita costs have been adopted in this to be USD 15.2 for septic tanks with FSM for the urban settings and USD 55.8 for pit latrines with FSM for the rural settings. I believe, in this the per capita costs mentioned to be "incremental off site" are cost for the FSM only excluding the toilet and septic tank costs. Would appreciate contacting if anyone is aware of how the costing was done in this document or know more about it.

With regards, Laxman]]>
Faecal sludge management Sat, 14 May 2016 14:04:34 +0000
Re: FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: dmrobbins10
In December of 2015, I had the chance to work with a team from SNV in Birendranagar Municipality, Nepal to investigate the feasibility of implementing city-wide FSM. We conducted a Rapid Technical Assessment to obtain data to better understand the volume of fecal sludge and the constraints that would be encountered in collecting it through an organized program. We then had the chance to work for a day with the private sector desludger (contractor) to witness the desludging procedures and gain insights into how much time it would likely take to desludge containment tanks in different parts of the municipality. We then conducted a series of workshops with local and national government staffers as well as the SNV team to add local costing information in an effort to determine the tariff required to sustain a city-wide program.

Our initial estimates came back quite low (26.4 NPR per family per month), as the assumption was that the local government would shoulder the costs for the treatment system, so these costs were not included in our initial tariff determination. Additionally, the assessment was carried out during a time when there was a fuel shortage in Nepal. There was literally no traffic on the roads resulting in very fast turnaround times for the truck. Adding in the costs for treatment, and adjusting the amount of time required for conducting the desludging operations under “normal” conditions would provide a more realistic estimate in my opinion.

When adding these figures into the Septage Management Toolkit, a tariff of 85 NPR (about $ 0.80 USD) per family per month seems to be supported by the data. The toolkit populated with the data from Birendranagar Municipality (adjusted based on my estimates of what would likely be encountered during actual implementation) as well as a document discussing the assumptions is attached. For the purpose of this posting, they should be considered as “my opinions” and not necessarily those of SNV or anyone else for that matter.

As a snapshot, the tariff estimate is based on the following parameters:
- 22,227 homes and 1,767 businesses within the coverage area (institutions including hospitals and schools are intentionally left out, as they would be covered under their own FSM program);
- The collection program would fund the purchase 5 desludging trucks at 5 cubic meters each to start, with a desludging increment of 5 cubic meters and a frequency of desludging each tank every 5 years;
- A community growth rate of 5% is anticipated;
- The desludging operation would be conducted by the private sector with a profit limited at 15% on top of the actual costs for conducting the service;
- The treatment plant would use non-mechanized technologies. The land would be provided by the Municipality but the treatment system would be funded through the tariff;
- A full time sanitary inspector employed by the municipality would support the program;
- The tariff would provide a residual fund that would support pro-poor provisions such as micro credit for purchase of toilets or upgrading septic tanks, and subsidies for the very poor.

Please note that the Septage Management Toolkit was developed to provide a rough estimate of a sustainable tariff at a pre-feasibility study level. It also assumes that the program would be launched at scale for the entire municipality, when in reality, phasing in the program over time would be the likely route of implementation. While the Toolkit was tested extensively in the Philippines, we don’t have any actual data from functioning FSM programs in Nepal, so this is still very hypothetical, but perhaps a good place to start. Users of the Toolkit can make their own adjustments as they develop their FSM programs to see how adjustments affect the tariff. For example, shifting to a 6-day work week from a 5-day work week (if feasible) makes a big difference on the tariff (due to the requirements of fewer trucks and a smaller treatment plant). Other adjustments, such as in the desludging frequency or volume of the collection increment would also have implications to the tariff.

I would be very interested to learn if you find this information useful, or if you have any suggestions for improving.
Faecal sludge management Fri, 13 May 2016 15:14:23 +0000
Re: Faster dewatering of faecal sludge - by: Moritz Faecal sludge management Wed, 11 May 2016 15:19:28 +0000 Re: Faster dewatering of faecal sludge - by: JKMakowka
In case anyone wonders, here is a recent paper on how chitosan could be produced relatively easily from shrimp shell waste using lactic acid fermentation:]]>
Faecal sludge management Wed, 11 May 2016 14:08:26 +0000
Faster dewatering of faecal sludge - by: Moritz
We would look to share a recently published open source research article on urban faecal sludge management with you.

Follow this link:

Worldwide, wastewater sludge is mixed with lime, salt and polymers (called conditioners) to be able to remove water faster. Removing water from sludge means less treatment space or higher treatment capacities. Faster dewatering could also make decentralized dewatering possible. Currently, 95% of what vacuum trucks are transporting around cities is water! This suggests that conditioners would be a great way to improve faecal sludge management.

However, import of conditioners is sometimes difficult, environmentally use not sustainable and expensive. In this study, we assessed the use of Moringa oleifera seeds and Chitosan for faecal sludge conditioning in Dakar, Senegal. These conditioners could be produced locally, for example, chitosan from shrimp waste. Locally should be seen in relative terms, for example, Chitosan produced in Senegal might also be able to provide benefits for faecal sludge management in other West African countries.

The results show that based on available shrimp waste quantities and faecal sludge dewaterability results Chitosan was the most promising locally conditioner tested. The efficiency of improving faecal sludge dewatering were in reason with commercially available conditioners from Europe.

We are currently building on these findings with research in Dar es Salaam and Kampala to learn more about Chitosan conditioning with other faecal sludge types and how it can be best implemented for full-scale faecal sludge treatment.

We hope this helps some of you. It would be great to assist you implementing it in one of your projects.

Faecal sludge management Wed, 11 May 2016 11:23:43 +0000
Re: FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: Marijn Zandee
I hope I am wrong, but I think that for Nepal there are very few FSM operations beyond a few pilots. This means that it is unlikely that there is good empirical data of the type you need.

Bipin Dangol-jie, maybe you can help Laxman with this?


Faecal sludge management Sun, 08 May 2016 11:30:21 +0000
Re: FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: kharallaxman
Thanks for your response. Regarding the context, this was from personal interest at this stage, as I am towards completion of my course on FSM from IHE.
The costing tool kit mentioned by David is for calculating the O&M cost while running the plant - I had come across this within the course. What I was looking for was the investment cost, for the very initial planning - so as to be able to think about cost as well quickly while conceiving about FSM.

Thank you again and best regards, Laxman]]>
Faecal sludge management Sat, 07 May 2016 09:38:29 +0000
Re: FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: muench
David recently mentioned a costing toolkit here in this post:

He wrote:

We used the Septage Management Toolkit to check the numbers and they are presented in the attached Excel spreadsheet. This is a toolkit developed by USAID 9 years ago. Interestingly, we have used different versions of the toolkit in the Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal and most recently in Indonesia for a 600 cubic meter per day project for a city of 2 million. Interesting now to try it on such a small project here at less than 2 cubic meters per day!

It is a simple tool with only 5 main tabs: i) the design flow calculator, ii) the number of collection vehicles, iii) the collections costs, iv) the treatment costs, and v) the balance sheet and tariff calculator.

Have you checked it out if it's any good?

Also there are these two FSM toolkits, do they contain what you're looking for?:

Please let us know what you find. And I agree with Reetu that it would be interesting to know more about the context of your question?

Faecal sludge management Tue, 03 May 2016 12:23:58 +0000
Re: Implementer's Guide to Lime Stabilization for Septage Management in the Philippines - by: dmrobbins10
It is a great suggestion and I think it would be easy to test. Recommend setting up a simple jar testing bench scale treatability study. Easy and inexpensive, and will provide you with information on the required dosing of hydrated lime for this application. If you try it, please let me know what you find out.

thanks for the post,

Faecal sludge management Tue, 03 May 2016 09:42:08 +0000
Re: Implementer's Guide to Lime Stabilization for Septage Management in the Philippines - by: pkjha
Thanks for the reply.
I am providing consultancy for septage management for 6 cities in Rajasthan State in India, supported by ADB. I am providing unplanted or planted sand filter beds (depending on site condition) followed by treatment options for effluent. I am not recommending lime due to its recurring expenses and precautionary measures required during handling by semi-skilled workers at the sites. Moreover, in the State, atmospheric temperature goes up to 500 C, sufficient to kill pathogens on drying beds. If frequency of loading is decreased by increasing number of beds and maintaining the sludge height of 20 cm, dried solid mass of desired level can be obtained with least chance of survival of pathogens.
Effluent from filter beds has high BOD – around 500 mg/l. It’s challenging to treat it to the acceptable level of discharge or reuse. Lagoon is not suitable to meet the discharge norms. Moreover, it requires large space- not normally available in urban areas. Anaerobic system is also not suitable to meet the discharge norms. I will use aerobic system with bacterial growth media. Lime is also not suitable as in such case population density of bacteria in effluent will definitely reduce, resulting in lower efficiency of the treatment system.
One simple suggestion-- Is it possible to use lime with higher doze in the septage only during the last loading of the filter bed? In such case lime will kill pathogens in solids on filter bed. Earlier effluent will have normal population density of bacteria. Effluent of last day will have little volume, of course with higher level of lime concentration. But total concentration will be much lower with little or no change in pH.
Faecal sludge management Tue, 03 May 2016 06:08:08 +0000
Re: FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: Reetu Greetings from Nepal!
I work for Environment and Public Health Organization (ENPHO) as Sanitation Engineer. As, I have been working on FSM, I'm quite interested in your post. Can you please share the purpose for the information (can you please elaborate this?) you searching for?

Faecal sludge management Tue, 03 May 2016 04:52:30 +0000
Re: Implementer's Guide to Lime Stabilization for Septage Management in the Philippines - by: dmrobbins10
Thanks for your questions. First it is important to know that lime stabilization will not eliminate all of the pathogens, but certainly most of them. Also, it is more accurate to say that the process limits regrowth of bacteria, and not that there will be no regrowth. We don't want to over-sell the technology.

It is a good question about the ABR function. From our experience, the use of the ABR after the lime stabilization process functions more as a mechanism for additional physical separation for whatever solids remain in the wastewater stream after the sand filtration, where the bulk of the suspended solids are removed. The ABR also provides detention time of between 1 and 3 days which allows the pH to drop to a level more suitable for subsequent treatment, such as the constructed wetlands.

As for the term "stabilization", it has actually been used for years. The US Environmental Protection Agency utilized it back in 1978 in their "Full Scale Demonstration of Lime Stabilization" document that looked at different application rates of hydrated lime for wastewater, return activated sludge, and septage. I would suspect that there actually is some degradation of the biosolids that occurs from the reaction of hydrated lime and sludge.

Thanks again for your comments. Please advise if you are planning any trials. I just returned from Myanmar where Oxfam has demonstrated a full scale system serving more than 50,000 people. We are also trying it on a much smaller scale using the in-pit lime stabilization process first trialed by iDE in Cambodia. Seems to have really good potential there.

Faecal sludge management Mon, 02 May 2016 11:04:46 +0000
Re: Implementer's Guide to Lime Stabilization for Septage Management in the Philippines - by: pkjha I failed to see your earlier post on lime stabilization for septage management. The topic is much relevant for many countries. There are several papers/ guidelines in different countries, highlighting use of lime stabilization for sepatge management. I have a few queries:
i. Application of lime to increase pH to12 will definitely eliminate pathogens, other bacteria and helminths from septage. The Implementer's Guide of USAID also mentions that there is no chance of re-growth of bacteria when treated with Lime. It also mentions that after passing septage through sand filter bed, effluent should be treated through ABR technology.
ii. Now the simple query arises how a biological treatment system like ABR would function for the treatment of effluent having such high pH and without presence of bacteria in the system ( bacteria are already eliminated by using Lime).
iii. The Guide uses terminology— Lime stabilization. I think function of lime is only to eliminate bacterial and other pathogens. It never results in stabilization of organic matters. Stabilization is a completely different term from pathogen free environment.
I’ll be happy to have response from you and other members of the Forum.

Faecal sludge management Mon, 02 May 2016 10:31:24 +0000
FSM per capita cost for Nepal or South Asia (seeking information) - by: kharallaxman I Was wondering if there is any information on or information that could be relevant on getting some picture on likely per capita (person) cost of FSM for the peri urban or small/emerging towns in Nepal - any indicative figure through indirect estimation; estimation/designs if any done so far; or anything from India or Bangladesh even ... or any suggestions.
With thanks, Laxman]]>
Faecal sludge management Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:17:07 +0000