tamil nadu state baseline study technical assessment of

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.


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


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



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



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


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


EE1. Key Findings E3

Executive

Summary


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


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



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.



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.



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


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.



Figure 1.1: Agro-climatic Map of Tamil Nadu


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



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)


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)




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


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



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


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




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



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



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


Figure 2.2: Frequency of Water Supply in Seven Agro Climatic Zones for Potable uses


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



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




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


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


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).



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


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



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


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




Figure 3.2: User interface in one of the household in hilly zone


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


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.



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


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


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.



Table 3.8: Vent Pipe in Septic Tank









Total 382 53 195 630


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









Total 94 347 189 630


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



Hilly Zone 9 0 0 81 90





Total 84 2 1 540 630




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



Hilly Zone 1 22 5 62 90





Total 16 350 23 241 630


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)


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


Table 3.13: Width of Septic Tank (Metres)


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




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


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


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


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



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


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


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



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


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



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 ?


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



No response 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 4


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



No response 5 4 1 4 1 8 2 25


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



No response 7 5 2 6 1 9 12 42


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


4Emptying and

Transportation4.1. Emptying 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


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


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




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


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


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


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


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.



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


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


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


Total 76 3 0 0 11 90

Grand Total 402 5 3 23 197 630


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



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


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


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.



Table 4.8: Distance to Households for Desludging

Distance to discharge point (Km)


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


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


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.



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) -


45% (41)

24% (22)

14% (13)

35% (32)

30% (27)

14% (13)


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) -


44% (40)

22% (20)

8.8% (8) 35% (32)

30% (27)

13% (12)


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) -


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)


5Treatment

and Reuse5.1. Treatment 41

5.2. Reuse 43




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


a b



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


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.



Figure 5.3: Waste Stabilization Pond at Kancheepuram


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



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


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



Table 5.2: Crops irrigated with freshwater

Crop/ Vegetable Number of


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


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)


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



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


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


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


total farmers


Sugar cane 4 2 2

Banana 3 1 1 1

Coconut 3 1 1 1



Table 5.4: Crops grown using faecal sludge


total farmers


Leaves 2 1 1

Rice 1 1

Potato 1 1

Cabbage 1 1

Tapioca 1 1

Grass for cows 1 1

Mango 1 1


Figure 5.5: Farmers being Interviewed at Ooty and Erode


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




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



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





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




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





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





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



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


Never done 20 29 29 24 47 21 53 223

No response 28 9 42 28 14 35 23 179

Who de-sludged


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.



Table 6.4: Collection and Transportation


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


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




Table 6.4: Collection and Transportation


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




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.



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



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.



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



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



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.



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.





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



Hilly Zone 0 26 1 2 0 0 1 30



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



Hilly Zone 3 0 0 3

North Eastern Zone 8 5 0




Total 37 11 1 49

Rear side of the house

Zone type



Hilly Zone 0 26 5 1 0 1 0 33



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



Hilly Zone 0 74 10 4 0 1 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




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



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




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




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





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




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



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



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.



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.


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.


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.




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.


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.


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



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.


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




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


Figure A3. 5: Toilet Building Mason Interview

Conducted by our Team Member at the House




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.


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


Cost of Materials Rs. 10,000 Rs.15,000


Total cost Rs. 8,000 Rs.15,000

Time taken for construction 1 day 3 days

Area requirement 3ft x 4ft -


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



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



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




Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs.60,000


Area requirement 40 sq. ft 100 sq ft


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



Cost of labor Rs. 2,500 Rs.15,000






Table A3. 4: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Pits for a Household of 5 Members in

High Rainfall Zone of Tamil Nadu


Area requirement 30 sq. ft 100 sq. ft


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




Table A3. 5: Resources Required to Build a Toilet with Septic Tank for a Household of 5

Members in Hilly Zone of Tamil Nadu






Area requirement 24 sq.ft. 100 sq.ft


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




Total cost Rs. 6,000 Rs.


Area requirement 40sq.mt 100sq.mt



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


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.



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.


Members in North East Zone of Tamil Nadu






Area requirement 16sq.ft 84.5sq.ft


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



Table A3. 8: Resources Required to Build a Toilet With Pits for a Household of 5 Members in

North East Zone of Tamil Nadu


Cost of Materials Rs. 10,000 Rs.



Time taken for construction 1 day

Area requirement 25sq.ft



and observation. None of masons had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques.


4 masons said they are not interested in any such training, as they know enough in this field.

A3.3.5. North West Zone



the opinion that engineer gives toilet dimensions. Average area of toilet is 2.24 sq.m. 8 masons agreed



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


Cost of Materials Rs. 10,000 Rs.1,00,000



Time taken for construction 4days 20 days

Area requirement 48sq.ft 100sq.ft


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




North West Zone of Tamil Nadu


Cost of Materials Rs. 15,000 Rs.







and observation. Only 1 mason had heard about training programs on toilet construction techniques.





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.


Members in South Zone of Tamil Nadu


Cost of Materials Rs. 16,000 Rs.1,00,000






Figure A3. 8: Mason's Interview Conducted by

Our Team Members On-Site








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.


Members in Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu




Total cost Rs. 1,00,000 Rs.




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.


Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu


Cost of materials Rs. 2,500 Rs.5,000





Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu


Total cost Rs. 1,00,000 Rs.


Area requirement 1 sq.ft 16.sq ft.




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




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.


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.


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






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


Remaining households are never desludged. 29 out of 90 households are following the desludging




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




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.





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.



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




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.




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




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




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



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.


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




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.



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.


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



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).



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,



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.


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



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.



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.



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.


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.



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.


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.



Farmers do not face restrictions from any government body/ organization towards the use of faecal

sludge or agricultural purpose.


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.




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


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.

tamil nadu state baseline study technical assessment of

Documents