sanitary survey of public drinking water sources in slums of bhubaneswar, odisha (1)
TRANSCRIPT
A Study Conducted in Slums of Bhubaneswar, Odisha
Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water Sources
H e a l t H o f t H e U r b a n P o o r P r o g r a m
Prepared byHealth of the Urban Poor (HUP) ProgramPopulation Foundation of IndiaB-28, Qutub Institutional Area,New Delhi – 110016
AuthorBiraja Kabi SatapathyNiladri Chakraborti
Special InputsShipra SaxenaMerajuddin AhmadDr. Sainath Banerjee
PhotographsHUP
Published January 2015
Copyright: The contents of this publication may be used freely for not-for-profit purposes, provided the users duly acknowledge the Publishers. However, anyone intending to use the contents for commercial purposes must obtain prior permission from the publishers.
Sanitary Survey of
Public Drinking Water Sources
A Study Conducted in Slums of Bhubaneswar, Odisha
2
The study gives details of the survey
undertaken, its findings, and suggestions
for ensuring drinking water quality in the
slums of Bhubaneswar.
3Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Summary
The sanitary survey of drinking water sources was done in Bhubaneswar slums where PFI is running the Health of the Urban Poor Program. The purpose was to understand the risk to public drinking water sources based on onsite inspection and water testing of the source with field test for pipe water supply and H2S bacteriological contamination test for all the sources. The study report gives details of the survey undertaken, its findings, and suggestions for ensuring drinking water quality in the slums of Odisha. The report tried to capture the result of the indicator-wise sanitary inspection and its relation with other indicators. We hope the study will be useful for the government for making some policy level corrections. We also hope that Government, Non Government and civil society organisations will adopt the sanitary survey as a tool for identifying factors that affect drinking water sources, which is essential for drinking water safety
acknowledgements
We are grateful to field level staff of PFI-HUP for
conducting the onsite inspection of public drinking
water sources in 168 slums of Bhubaneswar. They
diligently tested all public drinking water sources with
the H2S bacteriological contamination test kit, and
the public pipe water supply through stand posts for
residual chlorine test.
We are thankful to community representatives,
Anganwadi workers, Accredited Social Health Activists,
councillors of respective wards of Bhubaneswar
Municipal Corporation, local community leaders,
youth and women of the slum for participating in the
onsite sanitary inspection of drinking water sources in
their respective slums. Our special thanks go to the
members of Mahila Arogya Samiti (women’s group) for
their enthusiasm in helping the HUP workforce.
The study report has been shared in three round table
consultations in Odisha in the cities of Cuttack, Rourkela
and Bhubaneswar during March 2014.Officials from the
departments of Health and Family Welfare, Housing
and Urban development, Public Health Engineering
Organisation, Odisha Water Supply and Sewerage
Board, urban local bodies, civil society organisations,
and representatives of development partners like
UNICEF, World Bank, Practical Action, One Drop took
part. A similar round table was organised in New Delhi
in June 2014 at Population Foundation of India where
WASH experts from various leading development and
UN organisations like the World Bank, UNICEF, Water
Aid, Water for People, AKVO, CURE and FORCE, and
corporate houses like Coca Cola and FICCI participated.
We acknowledge and value the suggestions by all the
participants at these four round table consultations.
5
ContentsSummary 3
acknowledgements 4
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
1.1 Sanitary Completion and Health 6
1.2 The Nature of Risk to Water Sources 7
1.3 Sanitary Survey for Sanitary Completion 8
1.4 Rationale for Undertaking the Current Study 10
1.5. Objective of the Study 11
Chapter 2: Sanitary Survey methodologies 12
2.1. Type of Drinking Water Sources Surveyed 12
2.2. Study Area 14
2.3. Risk Assessment of Drinking Water Sources 15
2.4. Precautions Taken During Drinking Water Sample Collection 18
2.5. Survey, Ratification and Validation of Data 18
2.6. Software Used for Data Analysis 18
2.7. Expected Outcome of this Study 18
2.8. Limitation of this Study 19
Chapter 3: findings of the Study 20
3.1 General Findings 20
3.2 Source wise Findings 27
Chapter 4: Suggestions 43
4.1 For Surveillance of Sources and Action 43
4.2. For Prioritisation of Area and WASH Intervention 46
4.3. For Community Participation 46
4.4. Advocacy with the Government 48
annexure I : Ward Wise Water Source Distribution 50
annexure II: Code of Slums Where Survey was Conducted 51
annexure III: repeat residual Chlorine test regime 56
annexure IV: Sanitary Survey formats 57
annexure V: Source Wise risk factors Segregation matrix 64
references 65
acronyms 68
6 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
1.1 Sanitary Completion and HealthSanitary completion impacts the microbial quality of water. It is essential to prevent the direct contamination of groundwater or surface water supplied through pipelines at the point of abstraction or point of collection, from the rapid recharge pathways close to the source. Sanitary completion includes underground and over ground construction of the abstraction facility, as well as the immediate area surrounding the abstraction point (Howards et al, 2006). Poor sanitary completion allows ingress of contaminated water close to the point of abstraction, and therefore, may short-circuit protection measures designed to limit risks from pathogens.
The direct contamination of drinking water sources caused by poor sanitary completion has been linked to both endemic and epidemic diseases. Outbreaks linked with poor sanitary completion have been noted in many countries. For instance, Olsen et al (2002) related an outbreaks of E. coli in Alpine, Wyoming, including cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome, to a poorly protected spring. Sanitary survey further identified the spring at risk from contamination by surface water. Poor sanitary completion measures also appeared to have played a role in the Walkerton outbreak in Canada (O’Connor, 2002). In developing countries the use of poorly protected groundwater sources have been linked to acute diarrheal diseases (Trivedi et al, 1971, Nasinyama et.al 2000). In November 2003, Odisha witnessed an outbreak of cholera at Parbatia, which was found associated with an unprotected well (Das et al, 2009).
The effectiveness of sanitary completion in reducing risk of all pathogen is profound as it provides barriers to direct contamination of sources. (Robertson & Edberg, 1997). However multiple interventions are required to act as barriers.
Chapter 1: Introduction
7Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
1.2 The Nature of Risk to Water SourcesFor sanitary completion measures, it is important to understand the multiple factors leading to contamination of drinking water sources. There are ranges of factors that may compromise quality close to water sources. These can be broadly categorised into hazard, pathway and indirect factors (Howard A. G., 2002).
• Hazard factors: These are sources of fecal material located in the environment which contaminates the water. An example is a pit latrine overlying an aquifer and close to an abstraction point.
• Pathway Factors: These are the potential routes by which contamination may enter into the water supply. Pathway factors include cracks in the lining of borehole, improperly sealed apron, etc. Pathway risk factors often result from poor operation and maintenance.
• Indirect factors: These represent a lack of control measures to prevent contamination (and therefore, increase the likelihood of a hazard or pathway developing) but do not themselves represent either a hazard or pathway. An example is a fence around water source. Absence of fence will not lead directly to contamination but may allow animals or humans to gain access to the source and create either a hazard (by defecating) or a pathway (by causing damage to the source or its immediate surroundings).
The source-pathway-receptor model of contamination is also relevant to sanitary completion of water sources. In this model, the source is the source of hazards, the receptor is the water supply and the pathway is the means by which the hazard can leave the ‘source’ and reach the receptor (Godfrey & Howard, Water Safety Plans (WSP) for Urban Piped Water Supply in Developing Countries, 2004).
The model recognises that the presence of hazards in the environment is insufficient on its own to represent a risk. A feasible pathway must exist that allows hazards to travel from source to the water supply.
BOx 2: Salient featUreS of
Sanitary SUrvey
• It’sacheapprocess.
• Ittellsuswhatneedtobedoneto
improve and protect a water source.
• Itreducesrisksofoutbreaksof
waterborne diseases.
• Ithelpstoprotectpublichealth.
• Oftensanitarysurveyispreferred
over water quality analysis alone, as
the latter can’t identify the sources of
contamination.
BOx 1: SoUrce – PatHway- receP-tor relationSHiP
Pathway
Receptor
Vulnerability of the water supply
Receiving water infrastructure
Source
Hazard event/environment
8 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
1.3 Sanitary Survey for Sanitary CompletionSanitary survey provides an easy but effective way of monitoring sanitary completion, particularly when this employs a standardised and quantifiable approach (Lloyd and Bartram, 1991; Lloyd and Helmer, 1991). Sanitary survey involves two principal activities, one is sanitary inspection and other is water-quality analysis. Sanitary inspection is done on-site to identify actual and potential sources of contamination of a water supply that pose potential danger to the health and well being of the consumers. The first attempt of the expert called into pronounce upon the character of potable water should be made through sanitary inspection (Prescott and Winslow, 1904). When sanitary inspection of drinking water sources is made in conjunction with water quality testing, it is called a sanitary survey. Sanitary inspection identifies potential hazard, while water-quality analysis indicates whether contamination is occurring and, if so, its intensity.
According to World Health Organization (WHO, 1997), Sanitary inspection is an on-site inspection and evaluation by qualified individuals of all conditions, devices and practices in the water-supply system that pose an actual or potential danger. In the preamble to the “Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)”,1 United States Environment Protection Agency defines a sanitary survey is defined as: “An onsite review of the water source (identifying the source of contamination using results of source water assessment where available), facilities, equipment, operation, maintenance, and monitoring compliance of a public water system to evaluate the adequacy of the system, its sources and operations and the distribution of safe drinking water”.
There is a need to conduct sanitary surveys on a routine basis to prevent contamination of drinking water supply and eventually reduce public health hazard. The information is used to take appropriate remedial action to improve or protect the water supply. Sanitary surveys are an opportunity to work and communicate with the water system in a preventive mode (USEPA, 1999). A sanitary survey should also be considered in the following cases:
1 United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA), The Interim Surface Water Treatment Rule, June 2001: In 1989, EPA issued two important National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NRDWR): The Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and The Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). The IESWTR builds on the TCR by requiring sanitary surveys for public water systems using surface water and ground water under the direct influence of surface water.
Sanitary inspection is
done on-site to identify
actual and potential
sources of contamination
of a water supply that
pose potential danger to
the health and well being
of the consumers.
9Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
• When contamination is suspected, to identify the likely cause
• During an epidemic of water borne diseases like cholera, to identify potential sources or risks
• To interpret results from water-quality analysis, to establish how the water became contaminated
The limitation of sanitary inspection is that it can determine the most obvious source of contamination, but may not reveal all sources of contamination. Therefore, water sources that show low or intermediate risk for contamination should still be tested for bacteriological contamination to confirm the result. The assessment criteria in many standard sanitary inspection forms are scored on a two-way ‘yes or no’ answer. The possibility of variations between the set out criteria in the forms and the observed sanitary faults are not provided for within the two-way answer system, thereby making the assessment rigid. The scores, therefore, may not represent the correct sanitary problem, as they may either exaggerate or underplay particular risk factors (Oluwasanya, Smith, & Carter, 2011).
Odisha is one of the top five states with
23.1% of its urban households
located in slums.
377 slums out of which only 99 slums are
authorised
1,63,983 people reside in slums across
the BMC
10 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
1.4 Rationale for Undertaking the Current Study According to Census 2011, Odisha is one of the top five states with 23.1% of its urban households located in slums. A total of 1,63,983 people reside in slums across the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) area and its outgrowth (Census 2011). The city has a total of 377 slums out of which only 99 slums are authorised (BMC, 2009). Most of the slums have sprung up on unutilised government land, and railway lands which were lying temporarily vacant. Low income group people reside in those areas in poor living condition devoid of basic services and amenities (Mohanty & Mohanty, 2005). With the proliferation of slums, the city started getting its share of challenges in terms of complex disease etiologies and risk factors.
As per a study, Urbanisation and its Implications for Child Health, three major type of pathologies are emerging in the urban slums of Third World countries. One of these is infectious and gastro-intestinal diseases, often termed as ‘diseases of poverty’. Though these have largely disappeared from the developed nations, they are a major source of mortality and morbidity among children and women in developing countries (WHO & UNEP, 1988). Slums in Bhubaneswar are not an exception. Often this type of pathology is found in direct correlation to the poor infrastructure for drinking water and sanitation. The access to safe water supply in slums gets compromised as inadequate sanitation, drainage and poor solid waste disposal invoke ‘hazard factors’ for water sources. Further, poor operation and maintenance leads to ‘pathway factors’. As most of the slums are un-notified, provisioning of water supply, maintenance and management of drinking water sources gets limited attention (Sajjad, 2014 & Subbaraman, et al., 2013). In slums, there are numerous ‘indirect factors’ as well which pose a risk to drinking water sources. With these arrays of risk factors, slum dwellers are entangled in a vicious cycle of morbidity caused by waterborne
11Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
diseases. This cycle can only be broken once the predominant risk factors are indentified and corrective measures taken. Adopting such measures demands ownership and collective action. The current study is relevant especially in the slum context.
HUP-PFI Odisha, under its city demonstration program, conducted a sanitary survey of 742 water sources spreading across 168 intervening slums in 25 wards of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation
from May 3 to August 14, 2013. Out of 168 slums, only 30 slums are notified and rest 138 slums are non-notified. All the public drinking water sources used by slum dwellers in the study area were considered for the survey.
1.5. Objective of the StudyThe study survey aimed to do an onsite review of the public drinking water sources, facilities, equipments, operation and maintenance of water supply system in HUP- PFI intervening urban slum areas for calculating the risk factors and taking the necessary remedial measures in coordination with concerned government departments and urban local bodies. The following were the objectives of the study:
• Identify potential sources of contamination risk associated with water supply
• Quantify the hazard attributed to the sources and supply
• Clearly explain the hazards to the user and provide guidance for the remedial action required to protect and improve the supply
• Generate primary data for research to be used in systematic, strategic planning for improvement in quality water supply and minimising risk
• Analyse gaps in the water supply system and suggest ways to bridge them.
The access to safe water supply
in slums gets compromised as
inadequate sanitation, drainage
and poor solid waste disposal
invoke ‘hazard factors’ for water
sources.
12 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Chapter 2: Sanitary Survey methodologies
2.1. Type of Drinking Water Sources SurveyedThe sample strategy was based on capturing all types of water sources like unprotected dug well, protected dug well, tube well (majority India Mark II), bore well fitted with mechanical pump and pipe water supply through stand posts commonly used by the community in Bhubaneswar slums. A couple of protected dug wells were also found and inspected. Table 1 below describes each type of drinking water source surveyed in the study.
According to WHO and UNICEF (2010), the first four types of drinking water sources mentioned in Table 1, i.e. the stand post, tube well fitted with hand pump, bore well fitted with mechanical pump and protected dug well are categorised as improved water sources and the remaining type, that is the unprotected dug well, is an unimproved water source.
Out of total 742 public drinking water sources surveyed, pipe water supply through stand posts stood at 293 (around 40% of the sample size), bore wells fitted with mechanical pump were at 108 (15%), tube wells with hand pump were at 177, (almost 24%), while unprotected dug wells were 162 (22%) and protected wells were just two in number. Hence, in the study area, the stand post was found the major water source, followed by the tube well fitted with hand pump, the unprotected dug well and bore well fitted with mechanical pump. The table 2 depicts the distribution of inspected water sources:
13Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABLE 1: tyPeS of drinking water SoUrceS SUrveyed witH illUStration
Water Source Type Description
Stand post Piped water supply through a stand post consists of a water-lifting mechanism from source, a distribution network through pipe lines and individual delivery points such as public stand posts. Treated water is generally supplied through piped network.
Tube well fitted with hand pump
Ground water could be extracted through a tube well with a hand pump. This consists of a borehole, a platform with a drainage and soak away pit which protects from surface water infiltration and contamination, and a hand pump – the water lifting device.
Bore well fitted with mechanical pump
Mechanical pumps are generally used to draw water from much greater depth through drilling a borehole to reach deep aquifers. Water from deep bore holes is less likely to be affected by pollutants originating from land or surface waters.
Protected Dug well
A dug well is covered from the top with a concrete slab and the hole at the centre draws water through a hand pump or a mechanical pump to minimise the likelihood of contamination. Ideally the top cover stands about a foot above the ground.
Unprotected dug well Unprotected dug wells are uncovered from top. Open or poorly covered well heads pose the commonest risk to well-water quality. The water may be contaminated by the use of inappropriate water-lifting devices by consumers.
Source: Preparation of pictorial illustrations on access to water supply and sanitation facilities for use in national household surveys , prepared for JMP, by UNICEF & WHO)
14 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABLE 2: diStribUtion of inSPected drinking water SoUrceS
Types of source Frequency Percent
Stand post 293 39.5
Bore well with mechanical pump
108 14.6
Tube well with hand pump 177 23.9
Protected dug well 2 0.3
Unprotected dug well 162 21.8
total 742 100.0
2.2. Study AreaThe current study was conducted in 25 out of 60 municipal wards2 of Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC). The study area covers 168 slums out of 3773 where Health of The Urban Poor Program has its presence. Out of total 168 slums 138 are notified or authorised and 30 are non-notified or unauthorised slums4. Figure 1 depicts the study area -
FIGURE 1: maP SHowing SUrveyed wardS in bHUbaneSwar
2 During the study period, the number of wards in Bhubaneswar was 60, but as per the Government of Odisha, Housing and Urban Development Department notification No. Ele 165/2013/26459 dated 24.08.2013, the area of the Municipal Corporation is divided into 67 wards.
3 As per Bhubaneswar slum profile, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, 2009, there are 99 authorised slums and the rest 278 are unauthorised slums.
4 Authorised slums are with dwellers having land rights. Unauthorised slums are with dwellers not having land rights and staying on Central/state government lands.
293
177
108
162
2
Stand post Tube wellBore well with fitted with mechanical pumpsUnprotected dugwellProtected dug well
15Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
2.3 Risk Assessment of Drinking Water Sources
2.3.1 Risk Assessment by Onsite Sanitary Inspection
The sanitary inspection report forms are designed so that every fault that may reduce the quality of the supply is listed and checked during sanitary inspection. Each fault represents a sanitary hazard. (WHO, 1997)
The sanitary inspection form prescribed by WHO was customised to the urban context and translated into the local language (Oriya). The standardised survey formats consist of a set of 10-12 diagnostics questions which capture dichotomous response either “yes” or “no” for on-site inspection of various categories of sources. The questions are structured in a way, so that the ‘’yes’’ answer indicates that there is a risk of
contamination, and the ‘’no” answer indicates that the particular risk is absent. Each “yes” answer scores “1” and “no” answer scores “0” attributing same value to each risk factor (usually 1/10-12) based on statistical correlation between the importance of microbiological/chemical contamination as determined by laboratory analysis and different diagnostic information identified through sanitary survey (Ferretti, et al 2010). At the end of the inspection, all the affirmative responses (yes) collectively decide the risk of contamination of each source. Based on the score, the risk of contamination is classified as low [0-2]; intermediate [3-5]; high [6-8] and very high [9 and above].
2.3.2 Water Quality Testing along with Sanitary Inspection
Sanitary inspection identifies the potential hazards of drinking water sources, while water quality analysis indicates the actual quality of water and the intensity of contamination. Two tests were done under the current study along with the inspection. One was the presence – absence test of E.Coli5 (Fecal Indicative Organism) in water samples which indicates the fecal contamination. It is not feasible to test every type of human pathogen that may be present in an aquatic environment. This is due to their great diversity spanning the phylogenetic spectrum from virus and bacteria to protozoa and worms, and because detection methods are often difficult and costly (WHO, 1999). Therefore FIO is used as proxy-indicator of increased probability of pathogens’ presence (EPA, 1986; WHO, 1999;WHO, 2003). This test was
5 Escherichia Coli –a thermo tolerant (TTC) bacteria- is a member of fecal coliform group and is more specific indicator for fecal pollution than other (Odonkers et al, 2013)
Sanitary inspection identifies the potential
hazards of drinking water sources, while
water quality analysis indicates the actual
quality of water and the intensity of
contamination
16 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
conducted for all the sources surveyed. The second test was to find trace of residual chlorine in piped water supply and bore well fitted with mechanical pump.
2.3.2.1 Water Testing by H2S Bacteriological Kit
In order to test for faecal contamination, the sample water was collected in H2S vials from each drinking water source that was inspected. The Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) vial is a useful tool for screening water sources and drinking water for faecal contamination.6 The H2S strip is easy to use and readily available.
The method of testing by the H2S kit:
• Dry and sterile media are provided in thescrew-capped bottles, which are ready for use. Fill the water to be tested in bottle up to the mark and cap it.
• Shakethebottlegentlyafterfiveminutestodissolve the contents completely.
• Keepitatroomtemperaturepreferablyat25-35 degree Celsius for 24 to 48 hours (WHO, 2002).
• Observeforblackeningofthecontents.
• If thewater turnsbrownorblack, it is likelythat it is not fit for drinking.
H2S test uses a medium with thiosulphate as a sulphur source and ferric ammonium citrate as indicator. During incubation, hydrogen sulphide is produced by some enteric bacteria — E. coli by reducing thiosulpahte. Hydrogen sulphide then reacts with ferric ammonium citrate producing a black insoluble precipitate and indicating the presence of the bacteria (Mosley & Sharp, 2005).
6 The results for bacteriological contamination using H2S strip technique are at best indicative and in case of contaminant detection, one must go for further testing to a water quality laboratory.
FIGURE 2: fecal contamination PreSent-abSent teSt witH H2S vial
FIGURE 3: reSidUal cHlorine teSt witH dPd-faS kit
17Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
2.3. 2. 2 Water Testing by Chlorine Field Test Kit
The presence of chlorine residual in drinking water indicates that:
• Asufficientamountofchlorinewasaddedinitiallytothewater to inactivate the bacteria and some viruses that cause diarrheal disease; and
• The water is protected from recontamination duringtransportation and storage. The presence of free residual chlorine in drinking water is correlated with the absence of disease-causing organisms, and thus is a measure of the portability of water.
When chlorine is added to drinking water, it proceeds through a series of reactions. Some of the chlorine reacts first with organic materials and metals in the water and is not available for disinfection (this is called the chlorine demand of the water). The remaining chlorine concentration after the chlorine demand is accounted for is called total chlorine. Total chlorine is further divided into: 1) the amount of chlorine that has reacted with nitrates and is unavailable for disinfection which is called combined chlorine and, 2) the free chlorine, which is the chlorine available to inactivate disease-causing organisms, and thus a measure to determine the potability of water (CDC, 1990).
In current sanitary survey water samples from all inspected stand post and bore wells fitted with mechanical pump were collected and tested for residual chlorine with a DPD (N, N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine – FAS (Ferrous Ammonium Sulphate) reaction based filed test kit.7
The method of testing by the chlorine field test kit:
According to the method described with the field test kit,, a buffered DPD indicator powder is added to a water sample which reacts with chlorine to produce the pink color characteristic of the standard DPD test. Ferrous Ammonium Sulfate (FAS) solution of appropriate strength is then added drop by drop until the pink color completely and permanently disappears, signaling the endpoint of the reaction. To get the reading, the number of drops used to cause this color change is multiplied by the factor (as it was given 0.1 in this test method along with the test kit) for the concentration of free chlorine in the water sample.
7 DPD (N, N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine), is the most common method for measuring free chlorine. At near neutral pH chlorine oxidizes the DPD to form a pink colored compound. Utilizing this, the quantitative technique suitable to measure free chlorine at site has been developed. A reducing agent, Ferrous Ammonium Sulphate (FAS) is used as a titrant which reacts and changes the pink colored solution to a colorless solution, the end point. (Harp, 2002)
18 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
2.4. Precautions Taken During Drinking Water Sample CollectionEvery sample collected in an H2S vial was marked with unique code8 along with the date and time of collection of water sample. To make sure that sample collected from a tube well represents ground water, only after sufficient pumping, it was collected in the vial. To minimise the reporting of false positivity due to the presence of bacteria in the spout of tube well and the tap of the stand post, a sample was collected only after disinfecting the spout and taps by burning with match sticks or a lighter. Precaution was also taken while handling the H2S vial. Directly touching the rim and filling water to the brim was avoided to ensure that bacteria gets enough space to thrive.
2.5. Survey, Ratification and Validation of DataThe survey was carried out by the front line workers of Health of the Urban Poor (HUP) Program. The surveyors were trained on using the simple and standard survey format. They were sensitised on the importance of safe water for health and factors that affect the water quality at source and at point of use. They were also trained on how to use H2S bacteriological testing kit and residual chlorine testing kit while conducting the survey in the field. Each surveyor was given a kit, containing an H2S vial, a sticker for putting the code on the vial, a marker, a small bucket with a rope for collecting water from a dug well, a match box, and a measuring tape. The community was represented in the field at the time of the survey through the slum secretary, president, Mahila Arogya Samiti (MAS – women’s group) members, and the Anganwadi worker. After the respective format for each source was filled, it was duly signed by the community representatives to ratify the information. In many cases, members from MAS actively participated in collecting the water sample from the sources. The entire process of data collection was monitored and validated by the HUP state and city teams during and after the sanitary survey activity.
2.6. Software Used for Data Analysis Software like MS Excel 2010, SPSS v16 were used for data warehousing and subsequent analysis. Other than calculating simple frequency and percentage, some bi-variate and multivariate correlation, regression was done to find the association between contamination and several risk factors as per the standard protocol. Considering the cross sectional nature of the study, the odds ratio was calculated in 95% confidence interval and the chi-square test was done to explore if there is any significant association between risk factors and contamination. The software Aarch View 3.2 was used for mapping.
2.7. Expected Outcome of this StudyThe sanitary inspection survey of all types of public drinking water sources located in the intervention slums of Bhubaneswar will help in:
• Raising awareness on factors that affect the drinking water source and draw attention on operation and maintenance of sources
• Developing models of water safety plan in vulnerable slums followed by specific WASH intervention
8 Program code/Slum code/Source code/Location of the source code
19Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
• Provide an opportunity to enhance knowledge for operation and maintenance of water sources
• Developing WASH sector specific BCC and capacity building strategies making drinking water as a focal point
• Identifying vulnerable slums for intervention on priority under NUHM, RAY, JnNURM etc.
• Advocating with respective state agencies and ULBs for strengthening WASH service provision
2.8. Limitation of this StudyIn this study, samples from all public drinking water sources used by the slum dwellers were taken, and individual drinking water sources were excluded. Further, as the sanitary survey exercise was done once, from May to August 2013, the comparison of pre and post monsoon analysis could not be done. The test to trace bacteriological contamination and the presence of residual chlorine in the collected water samples was done by the field test kit only. Samples from water sources that were found with bacteriological contamination could not be confirmed by a lab test.
• Individualdrinking
water sources were
not taken
• Preandpost
monsoon analysis not
done
• Testingofwaterdone
by field test kit only
20 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
3.1 General Findings
3.1.1 Contamination Risk of Various Drinking Water Sources
Irrespective of the type of source, the current survey reveals that 19 % of the total sources come under low category of risk, whereas 43% belong to intermediate, 35% to high and 2% come under the very high category of risk.
TABLE 3: riSk Pattern for water SoUrceS
Category of risk Frequency Percent
Low 144 19
Intermediate 320 43
High 260 35
Very high 18 2
total 742 100.0
It is evident from Table 3 that majority of the water sources either come under the intermediate or high risk category.
Chapter 3: findings of the Study
21Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABLE 4: Percentage of SoUrceS aS Per riSk category
Category of risk Type of sources (in percentage)
Stand post Tube well
with hand
Pump
Bore well with
mechanical Pump
Protected
dug well
Unprotected
dug well
Low (n=144) 55.6 18.1 9.7 0.7 16.0
Intermediate(n=320) 41.2 22.2 17.5 0.3 18.8
High(n=260) 31.2 30.0 13.5 0.0 25.4
Very High (n=18) 0 11.1 16.7 0.0 72.2
Source wise further exploration (Table 4) shows that stand post tops the list of low risk category sources (55.6%, n= 144), while unprotected dug well occupies the top slot of very high risk category of sources(72.2%, n=18).
The spread of contamination risk scores are presented in Figure 4 where the upper and lower points represent maximum and minimum. Boxes indicate 25th and 75th percentile boundaries. The intersecting line in each box represents the median value. The median risk score of stand post was found 4 with Inter Quartile Range 2,6 which is also the median risk score for the bore well fitted with mechanical pump with different IQR[3,6], median risk score for both tube well fitted with hand pump and unprotected dug well is 5 with same IQR[3,7]. So on an average, the stand post and the bore well fitted with mechanical pumps
STAND POST
Cont
amin
atio
n ri
sk s
core
BORE WEL WITH MECHANICAL
PUMP
TUBEWEL WITH HAND
PUMP
PROTECTEDDUG WEL
UNPROTECTED DUG WEL
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FIGURE 4: median riSk Score of water SoUrceS
22 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
emerged as better performing water sources in the slum context in comparison to the tube-well and unprotected dug well. The median risk score for the protected dug well was even lesser than the stand-post. However, the sample size of the protected dug well was not representative enough to conclude anything.
3.1.2. Bacteriological Contamination of Various Sources
Water sample from each inspected source was collected in an H2S vial and was allowed to incubate for the prescribed time i.e. 24 to 48 hours. Based on the change of the colour of the sample (black or deep brown) the sample was considered positive, i.e. trace of fecal contamination was confirmed. Table 5 represents the result of the test for all water sources.
Twenty three percent of the sources were found with fecal contamination, while 77% of the sources were found to be free from it during the survey. In other words, almost one in every four water sources was found to be contaminated with the bacteria.
3.1.3 Source Wise Bacteriological Contamination
As expected, the maximum proportion of unprotected dug wells, which are an unimproved source, were found with the contamination (52%, n=162), followed by tube wells fitted with hand pump (29%, n=177). Table 5 shows the percentage of different sources found positive during water source inspection.
TABLE 5: diStribUtion of contaminated SoUrceS
Type of drinking water sources % reported with contamination
Stand Post (n=293) 10
Bore well with mechanical pump(n=108) 8
Tube well with hand pump(n=177) 29
Protected dug well(n=2) 0
Unprotected dug well(n=162) 52
Traces of fecal bacteria were also detected in around 10% of the stand posts. In slums, both dug wells and tube wells cater to large chunks of population alongside piped water supply. The vulnerability of both the sources for bacteriological contamination reveals the magnitude of the population at risk of several water borne diseases.
3.1.4. Correlation between Bacteriological Contamination and Risk Categories of Water Sources
The current study tries to establish the connection between the bacteriological contamination of drinking water sources along with their risk results obtained from onsite sanitary inspection. A cross tabulation shows that majority of the contaminated sources belong to either the intermediate or high risk category. A greater risk of contamination is associated with a higher grade of contamination. In the present case, a Chi-square test establishes significant association between bacteriological test positivity and higher contamination risk score with χ2 = 9.15, p(0.027)<0.05. However, a high sanitary risk score with a low
23Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
level of contamination or no contamination still requires urgent action, as water quality in such sources gets compromised following rainfall (Howard et al, 2003; Godfrey et al, 2006). This indicates the outburst of contamination any time and the need for preventive action.
TABLE 6: contamination and riSk category croSS tabUlation
Sources Category of risks
low (%) Intermediate (%) High (%) Very high (%)
total
Contaminated 17 40 39 5 N1=173
Not Contaminated 20 44 34 2 N2= 569
N=742
A bivariate correlation test (Pearson Correlation)9 further establishes significant positive correlation between the bacteriological contamination of a source and its corresponding risk score or category of risk.
9 Pearson’s correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the strength of a linear relationship between a paired data. In a sample it is denoted by r and is by design constrained as -1≤r≤1. Positive value denotes positive correlation and negative value denotes negative correlation. The closer the value is to 1 or -1, the stronger the correlation.
FIGURE 5: ward wiSe diStribUtion of contaminated SoUrceS
Water sample from each inspected
source was collected in an H2S vial
and was allowed to incubate for the
prescribed time i.e. 24 to 48 hours.
24 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABLE 7: PearSon correlation PreSentation
Correlations
Water safe or not Category of Risk
Water safe or not Pearson Correlation 1 .081*
Sig. (2-tailed) .028
N 742 742
Category of Risk Pearson Correlation .081* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .028
N 742 742
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
3.1.5 Identification of Vulnerable Wards in terms of Contaminated Water Sources
The color coded map of Bhubaneswar (Figure 5) is to show the spread of vulnerable wards in terms of percentage of contaminated sources identified against total sources surveyed in those respective wards.
3.1.6 Distribution of Water Sources across Municipal Wards According to their Risk Category
The current study has categorised all the water sources located in the study area based on responses to the diagnostic questions. Figure 6 presents the percentage of water sources identified under each risk category out of the total number of water sources surveyed within each slum. Extrapolation of this graphical interpretation may help in categorising and prioritising while taking remedial measures.
12 26 45 56 47 27 31 11 2 9 16 53 57 15 32 52 58 54 1 33 7 30 34 8 460
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Low
FIGURE 6: ward wiSe Percentage diStribUtion of tHe water SoUrceS witH low riSk category
25Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Figure 6 represents the distribution of low risk category water sources across the surveyed wards. Slums located in Wards 12, 26, 45 and 56 were not identified with any sources belonging to the low risk category. Ward 46 was identified with having maximum percentage of low risk sources. According to the Figure 5, this ward belongs to the green zone, where 0-5 % of the total sources were found contaminated with fecal bacteria. Ward number 12 was also found in green zone though no low risk sources were identified in the slums of this municipal ward.
Figure 7 shows that other than Ward 12, all wards have a considerable proportion of water sources belonging to the intermediate risk category. Bacteriological contamination wise however, those wards come under the entire range of green to red category (Figure 5).
12 2 27 1 33 26 7 32 30 46 34 8 57 54 11 53 31 16 15 58 9 47 45 56 520
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
FIGURE 7: ward wiSe Percentage diStribUtion of water SoUrceS witH intermediate riSk category
26 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
FIGURE 9: ward wiSe Percentage diStribUtion of water SoUrceS witH HigH riSk category
Figure 9 presents the predominance of very high risk category of water sources in seven wards. According to bacteriological contamination vulnerability spectrum presented in Figure 5, none of these wards comes under the green category and are closer to the red category. In terms of taking remedial measures these wards demand top most attention.
52 46 8 34 30 15 58 16 56 45 9 47 54 7 53 11 31 57 33 32 1 2 27 26 120
20
40
60
80
100
120
FIGURE 8: ward wiSe Percentage diStribUtion of water SoUrceS witH HigH riSk category
1 11 12 26 31 32 33 45 46 47 52 53 54 56 57 58 8 9 7 15 30 34 16 2 270
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
The above chart represents the distribution of water sources belonging to the high risk category across the surveyed wards. The critical observation here is that though Ward 12 was in green type in terms of bacteriological contamination of water sources (Figure 5), yet it was detect with 100% high risk sources. As we know water quality varies seasonally (Godfrey et al, 2006), water quality in such sources mostly get affected post a rain event (Howard et al, 2003). Eventually a single measure may often present such ambiguous findings, which otherwise can be ruled out by more frequent assessments (Luby, et al., 2008).
27Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
3.2 Source Wise Findings
3.2.1 The Stand Post
3.2.1.1 Proportion of Stand Posts Belonging to Different Contamination Risk Categories
In present study, a total of 293 stand posts were inspected out of which 27% were found belonging to the ‘low risk’ category, 45% were in the ‘intermediate risk’ category and 28% were in the high risk category. No stand post was found in the ‘very high risk category’. It is evident from the data that in a slum context even the safety of pipe water supply, which is considered as one of the development indicators, gets compromised. Though only 10% of the total inspected stand posts (n=293) were found with bacteriological contamination, risk score wise 11% of the intermediate stand post (n=132) and 15% of high risk stand post(n=81) were found contaminated yet the potential hazards outburst from the stand post cannot be ruled out. The following table shows the situation of all the inspected stand posts against the prescribed risk factors.
Surrounding area insanitary (hazard factors), stagnant water surrounding the stand post, plinth cracked and eroded (pathway factors), and animals having access to the source (indirect factors), emerged as the predominant risk factors associated with pipe water supply alias stand post in Bhubaneswar slums.
Stand post, n=293
TABLE 8: exiSting SitUation of Stand PoStS in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
risk factors %
Leakage in tap 21
Surrounding area insanitary 72
Stagnant water surrounding stand post 46
Discontinuity of water supply for last 10 days 6
Leakage in distribution pipe 21
Stand post below ground level 38
User reported pipe breaks last week 9
Plinth cracked and eroded 45
Animals have access to stand post 83
Cracks and leakage in adjacent tank 8
The sanitary inspection and water quality for stand posts is presented in Table 9:
28 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABle 9: diStribUtion of contaminated SoUrceS againSt eacH riSk factor
risk factors % reported with H2S test positive
Leakage in tap (n=62) 13
Surrounding area insanitary (n=210) 12
Stagnant water surrounding stand post(n=135) 17
Discontinuity of water supply for last 10 days(n=16) 19
Leakage in distribution pipe(n=61) 20
Stand post below ground level (n=110) 9
User reported pipe breaks last week(n=27) 11
Plinth cracked and eroded (n=132) 10
Animal has access to stand post(n=244) 10
3.2.1.2 Estimation of the Strength of Association Between Risk Factors and Contamination
Stand posts with leakage in the distribution pipe, where the water supply had been discontinued for the last 10 days, and those surrounded by stagnant water, were the ones that were found to be more contaminated. To test whether this contamination happened by chance or there is statistically a significant association between each or multiple risk factors and bacteriological contamination, the odds ratio (OR)10 was calculated along with the Chi-square test11 for each risk factor in the 2 X 2 contingency table.
10 Odds are the probability of an event occurring divided by the probability of not occurring. An odds ratio is the odds of the event (here bacteriological contamination) in one group. For example, those stand posts exposed to certain risk factor divided by odds in another groups - stand posts not exposed to certain risk factor (David et al. 2008). Odds ratio above 1 indicates a positive relationship between the risk factors and water contamination. Confidence interval and p-value gives an indication of the statistical significance of the odds ratio and eventually about the relationship of the risk factor and water quality compromisation (Howard et al, 2006).
11 Chi-square is a statistical test commonly used to compare observed data with data we would expect to obtain according to a specific hypothesis.
29Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
The findings are placed in the following contingency table for stand posts. In the following table, only two risk factors that is ‘surrounding area insanitary’ and ‘leakage distribution pipe line’ have been found to have significant association with water contamination at p value 0.024<0.05 and .004<0.05.
TABLE 10: contingency table for Stand PoStS
risk factors Water sample detected with bacteriological contamination
or 95% CI p-value
Leakage in tap 1.481 .622 ,4.032 0.372
Surrounding area insanitary 3.77 1.108,12.820 .024
Stagnant water surrounding stand post 1.753 .805,3.815 0.083
Discontinuity of water supply for last 10 days 2.227 .595,8.333 .223
Leakage in distribution pipe 3.095 1.388,6.896 .004
Stand post below ground level 1.159 0.518,2.592 0.72
User reported pipe breaks last week 1.154 0.325,4.095 0.825
Plinth cracked and eroded 1.010 0.467,2.183 .98
Animals have access to stand post 1.042 0.377,2.878 .937
Cracks and leakage in adjacent tank 1.167 .259,5.249 .841
The round odds ratio in both the cases is greater than 1 and 95% confidence interval, which provides information about precision excludes 1 (Odds ratio =1 signify no association between exposure and outcome), and thus signifying positive association.
Multivariate Logistic regression models12 were developed using SPSS to further investigate the causes of exceeding water quality targets (Howard et al, 2003). While doing the regression however only those covariates where Odds ratio showed relationship significant at least to 95% confidence interval level. ‘Surrounding area of stand post insanitary’ and ‘Leakage in distribution pipeline’ are two such covariates [Table: 10].
The result of binary logistic regression model is shown below.
TABLE 11: logiStic regreSSion for Stand PoStS in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
Model -2ll Variables log estimate
(B)
S.e. df Sig. exp (B)
95.0% C.I. for eXP(B)
lower Upper
Source found contaminated [H2S test positive]
177.468 Constant -3.467 .599 1 .000 .031
Area insanitary 1.189 .630 1 .059** 3.285 .956 11.292
Leakage in distribution pipe line
1.011 .414 1 .015** 2.747 1.221 6.183
**p<.05
12 Such a model is used to explore the association between one outcome variable (dichotomous, contamination=1, no contamination=0) and two or more exposure variables. In the present study, all the risk factors are exposure variables. This model helps in isolating the relationship between the exposure variable and outcome variable from the effect of one or more other variables called covariates or more precisely confounder.
30 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
The model explains that leakage in the pipeline distribution is 2.747 times more likely to have contamination in the water supplied through piped connection. Similarly, stand posts surrounded by insanitary areas are 3.285 times more likely to have contamination. Such findings are in agreement with other similar studies. Infiltration of contaminated surface or sub surface water occurs when there is reduced pressure within the
supply pipeline and simultaneously there is an existence of a physical route i.e. leakage caused either by corrosion, cracks or outright breaks (Robertson, Standfield, Howard, & Bartram, 2003). Leakage rates are typically found high with even well operated system experiencing rates of 10-20 % (LeChevallier et al, 1999; WHO & UNICEF, 2000). Several epidemiological studies through environmental investigation identified pipe line leakage and its cross connection with sewerage, open-drain, stagnant storm water pool etc. as a causal factor associated with the outbreak of various waterborne diseases (Bhunia, et al., 2009; Bhunia, Ramkrishnan, Hutin, & Gupte, 2009; Haque, et al., 2013 Sailaja, et al., 2009)
3.2.1.3. Presence of Residual Chlorine in Pipe Water Supply through Stand Post
Residual chlorine13 in water samples from all stand posts was tested with the field test kit. Samples from total 293 stand posts were found with a minimum 0.0 ppm to 5.50 ppm residual chlorine with a mean of 0.47 ppm and a standard deviation of .479. The slight higher standard deviation indicates that there is wide variation of the presence of residual chlorine in different samples and presence of an outlier as well. The excessive high amount of residual chlorine determined on a few sources is the evidence against the existence of such outliers.
With reference to permissible limit of residual chlorine in drinking water (0.2-0.5 ppm), the entire stand posts were further classified into four categories. The results are presented in Table 12:
TABLE 12: PreSence of reSidUal cHlorine in water from Stand PoSt
residual chlorine frequency Percent (%)
Absent 3 1.0
Below permissible limit 45 15.4
Within permissible limit 180 61.4
Above permissible limit 65 22.2
total 293 100.0
13 The World Health Organization recommends that the residual chlorine in treated drinking water should be within the range of 0.2 to 0.5 ppm (mg/l) for preventing further growth of bacteria during transportation of water through pipe line and in the course of storage.
31Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
In majority of the samples collected (61.4%, n=293) from the stand posts, residual chlorine was found within permissible limit (0.2-0.5 ppm). However, a significant percent of samples i.e. 22.2%, were detected with chlorine above permissible limit. One third (n=22) of such sources were further tested and in 32% cases the second time test also resulted with above permissible limit (Annexure III). In surveyed stand posts, chlorine was absent in just 1.0% samples (n=293) and 15.4 % water samples from the stand posts were found with chlorine below permissible level.
There was disparity in the amount of chlorine present during morning and evening supplies. In some stand posts, the morning supply had excessive chlorine, where as the evening supply was within permissible limits. The quality control of chlorine dosing at the water treatment point, or the proximity of the stand post from water treatment plant, flow rate of water in the pipeline, all attribute to the presence of residual chlorine below or above permissible levels in the supplied drinking water. As both conditions have significant public health implications, it demands further study and exploration with water sample testing in the Public Health Engineering Organisation (PHEO) authorised laboratory.
A logistic regression considering the presence of contamination as dichotomous dependent variable and presence of residual chlorine within permissible limit or not as categorical exposure variable were undertaken. The results are depicted in Table 13:
TABLE 13: logiStic regreSSion of PermiSSible cHlorine in water and bacteriological contamination
model -2ll Variables log estimate
(b)
S.e. df Sig. exp (b) 95.0% C.I. for eXP(b)
lower Upper
Source found contaminated [H2S test positive]
99.679 Constant -3.555 .454 1 .000 .029
Chlorine within permissible limit
2.457 .563 1 .000** 11.667 .3.871 35.161
**p<.001
The quality control of chlorine dosing at
the water treatment point, or the proximity
of the stand post from water treatment
plant, flow rate of water in the pipeline,
all attribute to the presence of residual
chlorine below or above permissible levels
in the supplied drinking water.
32 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
The model reveals that stand posts carrying water with residual chlorine are 11.6 times less likely to be contaminated.
It is to be noted that both the absence of residual chlorine and excessive residual chlorine can attribute to the risk regime. Though WHO(1993) promotes, “the risk of death from pathogen is at least 100 to 1000 times greater than the risk of cancer from disinfection by products (DBP)14”, the same document quotes, “because of the formation of the by-product the chemical risk increases with increasing level of chlorine”(Morris, 1978). Morris also cited, that with raised chlorine levels and exceeding test and odor thresholds, consumers may switch to unsafe sources.
3.2.2 Tube Well Fitted with Hand Pump
3.2.2.1 Proportion of Tube Wells Fitted with Hand Pumps Belonging to Different Contamination Risk Categories
Tube well fitted with hand pump (India mark II)15 comprises the second largest proportion of all water sources surveyed under the study. A total of 177 tube wells were surveyed, of which 15% were found in the low risk category, 40% in the intermediate risk category, 44% in the high risk category, and 1% in the very high risk category. This shows the extent of risk associated with the tube well – one of the major sources of drinking water in slums – and the potential it has to be a public health threat. Out of the 177 tube wells, 29% i.e. almost 1/3 of the sample inspected were found with traces of fecal contamination. Table 14 represents the contamination pattern in different risk categories of tube wells.
TABLE 14: riSk category vS contamination croSS tabUlation for tUbe wellS
Sources Category of risks
low (n=26) Intermediate (n=71) High (n=78) Very high (n=2)
Contaminated (%) 42 27 26 50
Often contamination is associated with high risk, but in the present study, 42% of the inspected tube wells, which were found to be under the ‘low risk category’ were identified with fecal contamination. This finding is consistent with the poor correlation noted between sanitary inspection scores of shallow tube wells and water quality in Indonesia (Lloyd & Bartram, 1991). Table 15 depicts the situation of the tube wells in Bhubaneswar’s slums.
14 DBP are produced by the reaction of residual chlorine and organic substances present in water. Chloroform, trihalomethanes are the most predominant DBP.
15 India Mark II is a hand pump designed to lift water from 50 m or less. The pump was designed jointly by Government of India, UNICEF and WHO in 1970. It can lift 12 litres of water in every 40 stroke(WaterAid).
33Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABLE 15: exiSting SitUation of tUbe well in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
risk factors %
Latrine within 10 m of the tube well 40
Nearest latrine on a higher ground than the tube well 20
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) within 10 m 81
Poor drainage, causing stagnant water within 2 m of the tube well 66
Faulty drainage channel (broken, permitting ponding) 50
Concrete floor less than 1 m wide around the tube well 63
Installation require fencing 81
Ponding on the concrete floor around the hand pump 36
Cracks in the concrete floor around the hand pump permitting water to enter tube well 45
Hand pump loose at the point of contact 36
Table 15 shows that all types of risk factors are associated with the tube well located in urban slums. Identification of 40% of the total inspected sources (n=177) in close proximity of toilet, and 81% of the total inspected sources in close proximity of other polluting materials -- excreta of animal and rubbish -- clearly gives us an idea about magnitude of ‘hazard factors’ associated.
Whole gamut of ‘pathway factors’ are also found as the study reveals. Sixty six per cent the inspected tube wells (n=177) had poor drainage causing stagnant water nearby, 50% of them had a faulty drainage channel, 63% of the hand pumps were with concrete floor less than 1m diameter and 45% (n=177) had cracks in the apron surrounding hand pump.
In current risk scenario, ‘indirect factors’ also have a profound presence as 81% of the tube wells are actually in need of fencing. While the above table showcases the magnitude of each risk factor, around 85% of the total sources belonging to the intermediate, high or very high categories get the status by having three or more of the above mentioned risk factors.
Sanitary inspection and water quality for tube well is presented in table below
TABLE 16: diStribUtion of contaminated SoUrceS againSt eacH riSk factor
risk factors % of source found
contaminated
Latrine within 10m of the tube well (n=70) 34
Nearest latrine on higher ground than the tube well (n=35) 29
Any other source of pollution ( e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) within 10 m (n=144) 29
Poor drainage, causing stagnant water within 2m of the tube well (n=117) 29
Faulty drainage channel( broken, permitting ponding)(n=89) 30
Concrete floor less than 1m wide around the tube well (n=112) 22
Installation require fencing (n=144) 28
Ponding on the concrete floor around hand pump (n=64) 33
Cracks in the concrete floor around the hand pump permitting water to enter tube well (n=79) 24
Hand pump loose at the point of contact (n=63) 27
34 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Sources in proximity of toilet, with faulty drainage channel, with ponding on concrete floor surrounding hand pump, show slight increased trend for fecal contamination when risk and contamination data are cross tabulated. However to know the significance of the association with each risk factors and contamination odds ratio were calculated corresponding to each risk factors. In the following contingency table, the odds ratio is presented with p-value and 95% CI.
3.2.2.2 Estimation of the Strength of Association Between Risk Factors and Contamination
TABLE 17: contingency table for tUbe wellS
risk factors Water sample found with bacteriological
contamination
or 95% CI p-value
Latrine within 10m of the tube well 1.546 .8,2.985 0.194
Nearest latrine on higher ground than the tube well 1.015 .448,2.300 0.972
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) within
10 m
1.098 .471,2.559 0.828
Poor drainage, causing stagnant water within 2 m of the tube well 1.036 .520,2.063 0.92
Faulty drainage channel (broken, permitting ponding) 1.161 .605,2.227 0.653
Concrete floor less than 1 m wide around the tube well 2.32 1.191,4.524 0.012
Installation require fencing 1.300 .578,2.924 0.525
Ponding on the concrete floor around the hand pump 1.351 .693,2.636 0.377
Cracks in the concrete floor around the hand pump permitting
water to enter the tube well
1.531 .786,2.982 0.209
Hand pump loose at the point of contact 1.150 .579,2.283 0.69
Table 17 shows the significant positive association between fecal contamination and the size of the concrete floor. The above table shows that pumps with concrete floor less than 1 metre of width are 2.32 times more likely (p=.012<.05) to be contaminated by fecal contamination. It is an important ‘pathway factor’ that is contributing to the contamination of tube wells in Bhubaneswar.
Data was further analysed through logistic regression16. The model developed is shown in following table. After adjusting the confounding factors, the model reveals two more risk factors i.e. ‘ponding on concrete floor’ and ‘cracks in apron’ has also contribution towards contamination of the water of tube well.. Sources with ponding on concrete floor are 2.493 more likely to be contaminated (p=.05) and sources having cracks on the concrete floor (pathway factor) are 2.556 times more likely to be contaminated (p=.045<.05).
16 Logic regression is a (generalized) regression methodology that is primarily applied when most of the covariates in the data to be analyzed are binary. The goal of logic regression is to find predictors that are Boolean (logical) combinations of the original predictors.
The regression model includes all co-variates where the odds ratios showed relationship significance at least to 95% level. Although not significant at least to the 95% but other covariats were also incorporated in model seeing the increased number of sources reported with those risk categories.
35Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABLE 18: logiStic regreSSion for tUbe well in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
B S.e. Wald df Sig. exp
(B)
95.0% C.I.for eXP
(B)
lower Upper
Concrete floor <1m .945 .389 5.892 1 .015** 2.574 1.200 5.522
Latrine within 10m(1) -.558 .380 2.155 1 .142 .572 .272 1.206
Pollution source within 10m(1) -.452 .527 .738 1 .390 .636 .227 1.786
Poor drainage causing water 2m(1) .034 .445 .006 1 .939 1.035 .433 2.475
Faulty_drainage_channel(1) -.035 .463 .006 1 .939 .965 .390 2.392
Fencing_HP_installation_inadequate_
damaged(1)
.366 .518 .500 1 .479 1.443 .523 3.982
Ponding_concrete_around_HP(1) -.914 .475 3.696 1 .055** .401 .158 1.018
Cracks_concrete_around_HP(1) .938 .468 4.015 1 .045** 2.556 1.021 6.400
HP_loose_point_attachemnt(1) -.520 .476 1.194 1 .275 .595 .234 1.511
Constant -.585 .458 1.627 1 .202 .557
**p<.05
3.2.3 Unprotected Dug Well
3.2.3.1 Proportion of Unprotected Dug Wells Belonging to Different Contamination Risk Categories
The unprotected dug well was the third largest type of water sources inspected for the study. A total 162 unprotected dug wells were surveyed, of which 14% were found to be in the low risk category, 37% were in the intermediate category, a whopping 41% in the high risk category, and 8% in the very high risk category. Fifty two per cent of all unprotected dug wells inspected were detected with fecal contamination, making them the most unsafe drinking water sources. Table 19 shows the contamination pattern across various risk categories of unprotected dug wells.
TABLE 19: bacterial contamination againSt riSk category
Sources Category of risks
low (n=23) Intermediate (n=60) High (n=66) Very high (n=13)
Contaminated (%) 65 48 50 54
The data clearly reveals that even dug wells that scored low in the risk category have traces of fecal contamination. A study Tube well water quality and predictors of contamination in three flood-prone areas of Bangladesh cited similar incidence, but in case of tube wells where predictor scores were less yet tube well were detected with bacteriological contamination (Luby et al, 2008). The situation of dug wells located in the slums of Bhubaneswar is shown in Table 20.
36 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABle 20: exiSting SitUation of UnProtected dUg wellS in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
risk factor %
Latrine within 10 m of the well 50
Nearest latrine on higher ground than the well 30
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) within 10 m 62
Poor drainage, causing stagnant water within 2m of the well 37
Faulty drainage channel (broken, permitting ponding) 26
Wall (parapet) around the well inadequate, allowing surface water 35
Concrete floor less than 1m wide around the well 57
Walls of the well inadequately sealed at any point for 3 m below the ground 56
Any cracks in the concrete floor around the well permitting water to enter the well 49
Rope and bucket left in such a position that they may become contaminated? 46
Installation require fencing 79
Fifty per cent of the total dug wells inspected were found within 10 metres proximity of a toilet (n=162), in case of ‘other source of contamination’ the proportion is 62%. This gives an idea about the propensity of hazard factors associated with a dug well. Pathway factors like ‘concrete floor less than 1m width’, ‘inadequately sealed wall’, ‘and cracks in apron’ or ‘rope bucket contamination route’ counted positive ranging from 57% to 46% of the inspected dug well (n=162). Indirect factors like requirement of fencing was identified in 79% dug wells (n=162). This table gives an idea about the magnitude of individual risk factors. But like other sources, here too, 86% of the sources, which were detected within intermediate to
37Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
very high category, earned their score for being associated with three to 11 risk factors simultaneously. Such a complex association of risk factors even makes sources more vulnerable towards compromised drinking water quality.
Sanitary inspection and water quality for unprotected dug wells is presented in Table 21.
Against each risk factor, a whopping 45% to 59% dug wells were found contaminated. For an example, almost half of those dug wells located in proximity of a toilet were found contaminated. In case of proximity to other pollution sources (n=100), 48% sources were found contaminated. Such figures apparently show propensity of ‘hazard factors’ towards contamination. But when 57% of the total dug wells detected with faulty drainage channel (n=42) and 59% of the total dug well with poorly sealed wall (n=90) are found contaminated, the influence of ‘pathway factors’ cannot be ruled out. When 53% of total dug well with inadequate fencing (n=128) are found with fecal contamination one cannot exclude the potential indirect factors and their contribution towards water quality degradation.
TABLE 21: Percentage of SoUrceS detected contaminated againSt eacH riSk factorS
risk factor % of sources
found
contaminated
Latrine within 10m of the well (n=81) 49
Nearest latrine on higher ground than the well (n=49) 45
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) within 10 m (n=100) 48
Poor drainage, causing stagnant water within 2m of the well (n=59) 49
Faulty drainage channel( broken, permitting ponding) (n=42) 57
Wall (parapet) around the well inadequate, allowing surface water (n=56) 48
Concrete floor less than 1m wide around the well (n=93) 41
Walls of the well inadequately sealed at any point for 3m below the ground (n=90) 59
Any cracks in the concrete floor around the well permitting water to enter well(n=79) 51
Rope and bucket left in such a position that they may become contaminated (n=74) 49
Installation requires fencing (n=128) 53
3.2.3.2 Estimation of the Strength of Association Between Risk Factors and Contamination
To test whether the contamination has association with the listed risk factors or just happened by chance, the risk estimation was done by calculating the odds ratio for each of the risk factors. The corresponding contingency is presented in Table 22. From the contingency table factors like ‘concrete floor less than 1m width surrounding dug well’ and ‘wall inadequately sealed 3m below ground level’ show positive and statistical significance towards contamination of unprotected dug wells. It can be concluded in the present context that these are the risk factor which are primarily responsible for contamination at p<.05 level. The
38 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
significance of association of different risk factors with water quality outcome may vary with each season as well (Alam & Rahaman, 2011). Though the samples were collected in the wet season, seasonality was not considered as one of the confounding factors.
TABLE 22: contingency table for UnProtected dUg wellS
risk factors Water sample found with bacteriological
contamination
or 95% CI p-value
Latrine within 10 m of the well 1.219 .658, 2.259 0.529
Nearest latrine on higher ground than the well 1.492 .760,2.927 0.243
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish)
within 10 m
1.499 .792,2.841 0.213
Poor drainage, causing stagnant water within 2m of the well 1.184 .625,2.247 0.603
Faulty drainage channel (broken, permitting ponding) 1.333 .653,2.710 0.425
Wall (parapet) around the well inadequate, allowing surface
water
1.25 .653,2.392 0.501
Concrete floor less than 1m wide around the well 2.895 1.512,5.541 0.001
Walls of the well inadequately sealed at any point for 3 m below
the ground
1.894 1.011,3.546 0.045
Any cracks in the concrete floor around the well permitting water
to enter well
1.1 .594,2.038 0.762
Rope and bucket left in such a position that they may become
contaminated
1.267 .682,2.354 0.454
Absence of fencing 1.276 .598, 2.717 0.529
39Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
A logistic regression model was developed to further investigate the causes of exceeding the water quality target. All co-vitiates where odds ratio showed relationship significant to the 95% confidence interval level (p≤.05) and above, were included in the analysis. Although the odds ratios for proximity of toilet and other sources, garbage within 10m were not found significant at 95% CI, yet they were incorporated in the model. This was as they were deemed to be a plausible route of contamination, specially in the slum context and when even low risk dug wells were also identified with fecal contamination.
TABLE 23: logiStic regreSSion for UnProtected dUg wellS in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
b S.e. Wald df Sig. exp(b) 95.0% C.I.for eXP(b)
lower Upper
Latrine_10_m(1) -.292 .340 .738 1 .390 .747 .384 1.453
Pollution_source_10m(1) -.627 .359 3.054 1 .081 .534 .265 1.079
Concrete_floor_1m(1) -1.407 .371 14.374 1 .000** .245 .118 .507
Wall_inadequately_sealed_3m_GL(1)
1.145 .374 9.400 1 .002* 3.144 1.512 6.538
Constant .796 .399 3.976 1 .046 2.216
*p≤.05 ; **p≤ .001
The model depicts that even after adjusting confounding factors, proximity of a toilet or other sources doesn’t exhibit any significant association with contamination of dug well. But dug wells with concrete floor less than 1 metre around are found 1/.245 or 4.08 times more likely to be contaminated (p=.000<.001), where as wells with an inadequately sealed up wall to three metres below ground level are 3.144 time more likely to be contaminated. Association of contamination with improper sealing can be attributed to subsurface leaching. Further scope for exploration was not included in the study design.
3.2.4 Bore Wells Fitted with Mechanical Pump
3.2.4.1 The Proportion of Bore Wells Fitted with Mechanical Pump Belonging to Different Contamination Risk Categories
Bore wells fitted with mechanical pump are one of the major sources of drinking water in the slums located in nine [Ward number 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 15, 16, 47 & 54] out of 25 wards where the current study was undertaken. In wards number 15 and 16 this type of source was found predominant [Annexure: I]. In this type of water source, the mechanical pump (a submersible pump found in study area) gets fitted with the bore well to extract ground water and lift it up to an over head tank. Water from the over head tank then reaches to the door step of the consumers through pipeline connection. These installations were found to be either by NGOs or as community initiatives. In many cases, the community had converted the pre-existing tube well into this advanced version. Often these sources were found to cater to a group of families, who take care of its maintenance and management, and pay the electricity bill by collective subscription. In ward 47 the local Corporator (ULB representative) had utilised the untied fund to install a similar bore well for slum dwellers. In the present study, a total of 108 bore wells were surveyed, out
40 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
of which 8% (n=108) were found to have fecal contamination, which is less than all other types of water sources surveyed (excluding protected dug wells as the sample size was not considerable). Majority of the bore wells were diagnosed under the intermediate risk category (52%, n=108), followed by high (32%), low (15%) and very high (3%) category. Table 24 shows the contamination pattern across various risk categories for the bore well.
TABLE 24: contamination and riSk category
Sources Category of risks
low (n=14) Intermediate (n=56)
High (n=35) Very high (n=3)
Contaminated (%) 0 13 3 33
The situation of the bore wells located in Bhubaneswar slums is shown in Table 25.
Bore wells fitted with mechanical pump (n=108)
TABLE 25: exiSting SitUation of bore wellS in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
risk factors %
Latrine within 15-20m of the well 62
Nearest latrine is pit /unsewered 22
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) within 10 m 59
Uncapped well within 10-15 m 14
Faulty drainage around pump house 19
Fencing inadequate/damaged 43
Floor of pump house permeable to water 31
Well seal insanitary 30
Chlorination is not functioning 100
Chlorine absent 100
Like all other sources surveyed for the study, ‘hazard factors’ are also associated with bore wells as 62% (n=108) are in proximity of a toilet, where as 59% of the total sources were found closer to other sources of pollution — animal feces or garbage. ‘Pathway factors’ show a lesser tendency to be associated with this type of water source. Interestingly, as none of the sources had any inbuilt mechanism of chlorination, residual chlorine was not found in any of the sample. Interaction with the community reveals that the over head tank is not used for storing water. It is used to make lifted water gravity fed. So the need of regular chlorination was not felt. Bleaching powder is used for cleaning the tank. However, a clear conclusion regarding the frequency of cleaning the over head tank could not be drawn as it was not an integral component of the current study design. But no chlorination and minimum presence of fecal contamination this literary ambiguous condition demands an in depth study exclusively for this type of source.
Sanitary inspection and water quality for bore wells is presented in Table 26.
41Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
TABLE 26: Percentage diStribUtion of contaminated SoUrceS againSt eacH riSk category
risk factors % of sources found contaminated
Latrine within 15-20 m of the well (n=67) 10
Nearest latrine is pit /unsewered (n=24) 13
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) within 10 m(n=64) 6
Uncapped well within 10-15 m (n=15) 7
Faulty drainage around pump house (n=21) 5
Fencing inadequate/ damaged (n=46) 7
Floor of pump house permeable to water (n=33) 9
Well seal insanitary (n=33) 9
Chlorination is not functioning (n=108) 8
Chlorine absent (n=108) 8
From Table 26 it is evident that none of the risk factors are associated with increased contamination. Still to explore the statistical significance of the strength of association with contamination, the odds ratio was calculated like for other sources.
3.2.4.2 Estimation of Strength of Association Between Risk Factors and Contamination
TABLE 27: contingency table for bore wellS fitted witH mecHanical PUmP
Variables Water sample found with bacteriological
contamination
OR 95%CI p-value
Latrine within 15-20 m of the well 2.273 .449,11.494 0.309
Nearest latrine is pit /un-sewered 1.857 .428,8.055 0.402
Any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish)
within 10 m
1.923 .486,7.634 0.345
Uncapped well within 10-15 m 1.318 .153,11.364 0.801
Faulty drainage around pump house 2.025 .239,17.145 0.509
Fencing inadequate/damaged 1.536 .363,6.949 0.557
Floor of pump house permeable to water 1.150 .270,4.906 0.85
Well seal insanitary 1.206 .283,5.155 0.799
Chlorination is not functioning NA NA NA
Chlorine absent NA NA NA
None of the risk factors shows a significant association with the contamination of the water supplied by the bore wells. Data was further analysed in logistic regression model [Table 28] and even after adjusting confounding factors no risk factor shows a significant association with contamination of the source.
42 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
The collective maintenance management, in some places NGO intervention, or construction design could be responsible for the source to emerge as a comparatively safer source of water in densely populated slums. But it requires further full length exploration.
TABLE 28: logiStic regreSSion for bore wellS in bHUbaneSwar SlUmS
b S.e. Wald df Sig. exp (b)
Pollution_source_10 m (1) .847 .842 1.012 1 .315 2.332
Fencing_HP_installation_inadequate_damaged
(1)
.364 .883 .170 1 .680 1.440
Latrine_15_20 m_pump_house (1) -.860 .932 .852 1 .356 .423
Latrine_unsewered (1) -.534 .866 .380 1 .537 .586
Uncapped_well_within_15_20 m (1) .006 1.183 .000 1 .996 1.006
Faulty_drainage_around_pump_house (1) .995 1.344 .548 1 .459 2.704
Floor_pump_house_permeable_water (1) -.502 .899 .312 1 .576 .605
Well_seal_unsanitary (1) -.682 .922 .548 1 .459 .505
Constant -2.402 1.386 3.005 1 .083 .091
43Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
One important objective of the study was to identify gaps in the water supply system and find solutions. This section of the report has been prepared based on the findings of the study, an extensive desk review, individual interactions with Government officials, urban health and WASH professionals, functionaries of civil society organisations and slum dwellers, and various consultations. The roundtable consultations were organised in three major cities — Bhubaneswar (March 14, 14), Cuttack (March 4, 14) and Rourkela (March 11, 14) of Odisha, one in the national capital, New Delhi (June 6, 14) and the other at the WASH Summit in Jaipur, Rajasthan (June 27, 14). The current chapter suggests ways to improve the quality of the water supply system and its surveillance.
SUGGESTIONS
4.1 For Surveillance of Sources and Action
4.1.1 Routine Inspection and Survey of Water Sources
Sanitary inspection of drinking water sources should be undertaken on a regular basis. Two minimum annual inspections along with microbial water quality monitoring may be done by the surveillance agency.17 As per WHO, the minimum annual frequency of sanitary inspection for dug wells, dug wells with hand pump is six times, and shallow and deep tube wells with hand pump is four times, which can be done by the community with the support of the water supply and surveillance agency.18
17 Capacity building/skill development of staff at all levels on water safety and management may be taken up in a coordinated manner. Refresher courses at regular intervals are required for different stakeholders responsible for water supply and its surveillance. PHEO officials may be given special training on environmental engineering. As suggested in the Round table consultation on safe water on March 4, 2014 in Cuttack.
18 Periodic monitoring of drinking water supply and its quality need to be done by a third party so that timely remedial steps may
Chapter 4: Suggestions
44 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
4.1.2 Placement of a Regular Water-Testing Quality Control Mechanism which includes Inspection, Testing and Treatment for Ensuring Safe Drinking Water
Out of total 742 drinking water sources surveyed, the trace of fecal bacteria was detected in all type of sources. Fifty two per cent of unprotected dug wells, 29 per cent of tube wells fitted with a hand pump, and 10 per cent of stand posts were found to be with fecal contamination. Drinking water sources with bacteriological contamination pose a high risk of several water borne diseases. There is the need to place a regular quality control mechanism for ensuring the safety of drinking water. Proper sanitary inspection needs to be followed by regular bacteriological assessment and regular disinfection of all drinking water sources. All these activities need to be planned and conducted on a regular basis. For this, there is a need for cooperation and strong convergent action between the agency responsible for drinking water supply in urban areas under housing and the urban development department, and the public health directorate under the health and family welfare department.
4.1.3 Establishment of Water Quality Labs in Urban Areas
It is difficult to find a water testing labs in cities and towns. Almost all water testing labs are owned by public health engineering organisations, and there are very few labs with the health department which monitors food quality. The capacity of these labs to cater to the need of the general public is meager. Establishment of such labs by the government and other agencies will allow consumers to find out the quality of water they consume.19
be undertaken in ensuring effective water supply. Integrated sewerage system needs to be developed for proper waste disposal leading water safety. As suggested in the Round table consultation on safe water in Cuttack.
19 Specific efforts need to be made for establishing water testing labs at least at district levels on a pilot basis to periodically check the quality of water quality before it reaches the people. As suggested in the Round table consultation on safe water on March 14, 2014 in Bhubaneswar, Odisha
45Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
4.1.4 Maintenance and Supervision of Drinking Water Sources to Control Various Hazard, Pathway and Indirect Risk Factors that may Compromise Drinking Water Quality
Maintenance and supervision of drinking water sources is vital for ensuring drinking water quality. Out of 293 public stand posts of pipe water supply surveyed, 10 % found to have bacteriological contamination. The major possible risk factors associated with the pipe water supply found from this study are leakage in the distribution pipe, where the water supply has been discontinued for the last 10 days, and stagnant water. Similarly, all type of risk factors are associated in case of the tube wells fitted with hand pumps. These risk factors can be taken care of by the constant supervision and maintenance.20
4.1.5 Maintaining the Standard on Concrete Floor Around the Source Recommended by WHO
As per the recommendation of WHO, the concrete floor around the well, tube well should be one metre as mentioned in the sanitary inspection format. The study shows the concrete floor is less than one metre in
63% of tube wells. Similarly, 57% of un-protected dug wells had less than one metre of the concrete floor. The study found a significant positive association between fecal contamination and the size of concrete floor. Those tube wells with less than one metre wide concrete flooring are 2.32 times more likely to have fecal contamination. The government could make it mandatory for any agency providing drinking water facility — PHEO, ULBs, NGOs, CBOs-- 21 to follow the standard of concrete floor for various drinking water sources.
20 The guidelines on management of water sources are required to be strictly adhered to and may be a part of the community monitoring process. As suggested in the Round table consultation on safe water on March 11, 2014 in Rourkela, Odisha
21 A structural framework or protocol may be developed to bring role clarity among different stakeholders associated with drinking water supply in the state, cities and towns. As suggestion in the Round table consultation on safe water in Bhubaneswar, Odisha
As per the recommendation of WHO, the
concrete floor around the well, tube well
should be one metre as mentioned in
the sanitary inspection format. The study
shows the concrete floor is less than one
metre in 63% of tube wells. Similarly, 57%
of un-protected dug wells had less than
one metre of the concrete floor.
46 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
4.2. For Prioritisation of Area and WASH Intervention
4.2.1 Use of Sanitary Survey as a Tool for Identifying Vulnerable Slums or Wards for Prioritising WASH Interventions
The sanitary survey could be used as a tool to identify the vulnerable slums and pockets in a city for water supply, sanitation and health intervention.22 Apart from the department responsible for provisioning water supply and ULBs, the sanitary survey tool may also be adopted by various civil society organisations working in slums and those that have specific water, sanitation, health and hygiene interventions.
4.2.2 Water Safety Plan and its Execution
Safe water and its supply are always aimed at public health protection and disease prevention. So water safety plans need to be planned and implemented taking a ward or a slum as a unit. The plan involves the assessment of the drinking water supply system to determine the quality of water supply at the delivery point, constant monitoring of the steps in the supply chain that are of particular importance in securing safe drinking water, a systematic independent surveillance to verify and cross check that the system is operating properly. It is worth mentioning that for water safety plan and its execution, local community leaders, ULB representatives, front line workers, women groups, youth clubs, community groups of specific slums and other community based organisations need to be involved.
4.3 For Community Participation
4.3.1 Sharing of the Report and Involvement of the Community in Sanitary Survey
Involvement of community members is crucial for maintenance of community drinking water supplies. As per Uniform Drinking Water Quality Monitoring Protocol of the Government of India, Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2013, “The result of the sanitary inspection and the remedial action that needs to be taken to improve conditions should be discussed with the community. In small water supply schemes, it is often possible for community members to carry out most of the inspections themselves using a standard form.” As a first step to disseminate the message and involve the community in the sanitary survey of drinking water sources, front line workers of various departments at the grass root level and functionaries of ULBs can be trained on sanitary inspection and water quality testing with field test kit. They may carry out the same under the guidance of public health engineering functionaries in their respective community.23 They may also be provided with a water quality field test kit and the H2S strip for survey of drinking water quality in a prescribed duration of time. It is important to involve the ward councilor/ corporator of the concerned ward in the survey.24
22 It was suggested at the Round table consultation in New Delhi on June 6, 2014 that the sanitary survey format may be modified considering the local environmental situation.
23 Numbering of tube wells may be done so that in case of need, the community may have a dialogue with the concerned authority for its repair and management. The Mahila Arogya Samiti (MAS) may be used in mapping water sources in their respective slums and the status report may be generated and shared in Ward Kalyana Samiti (WKS)/Ward Coordination Committee (WCC) meeting for its smooth management under NUHM initiatives. As suggested in the - Round table consultation on safe water in Bhubaneswar, Odisha and Round table consultation on safe water on June 6, 2014 in New Delhi.
24 A sound participatory monitoring mechanism to assess the water sources at regular intervals, especially in slum areas is of inescapable necessity. There is need of basic information and its dissemination at all levels about the owners of water sources,
47Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
4.3.2 Inclusion of Water Quality in the Communication Plan of Allied Departments and Awareness Generation Among the Community
Any water source, which has serious risks as suggested by sanitary survey report, should be brought to the notice of the concerned authority. The community needs to be made aware for not using the water from the contaminated source. Immediate action should be taken to treat the water and for other necessary action as suggested by the sanitary survey. At the same time, a specific strategy in the communication plan may be developed for awareness on various factors that compromise water quality along with the importance of safe water, linkage of drinking water with health and well being, sanitary inspection of water sources, safe handling of water, safe storage and home-based water treatment methods (Point of Use). By demonstrating the use of H2S strip and field test kit in the community, and the test results, awareness can be created on safe water.25
4.3.3 Precaution for Proximity of Toilet to Drinking Water Sources
There is a direct relation of the presence of a latrine near the water sources with risk of contamination. As per WHO’s sanitary inspection format, the minimum distance of the latrine from the drinking water source needs to be 10 metres from the tube well, and 15 to 20 metres for a bore well with a mechanical pump. The present study reveals that 40% of the tube wells and 50% of the unprotected dug wells surveyed had a latrine within 10 metres. Similarly, 62% of bore wells fitted with a mechanical pump have the latrine within
so that at the time of need, the community may help the owners in successful and quality management and maintenance of the water sources. As suggested in the Round table consultation on safe water in Bhubaneswar, Odisha
25 People residing closer to the pumping station often get water with higher residual chlorine. They should be told to leave the water standing for a minimum for half an hour prior to consumption As suggested in the Round table consultation on safe water in Rourkela, Odisha
The result of the sanitary
inspection and the remedial
action that needs to be taken to
improve conditions should be
discussed with the community.
In small water supply schemes,
it is often possible for community
members to carry out most of the
inspections themselves using a
standard form.
48 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
15-20 metres. Since slums are characterised by lack of space and density of population, extra caution needs to be taken to follow the standard. Our experience in interacting with the community in slums shows a lack of knowledge among various stake holders on this basic technical aspect of the distance from the latrine to the drinking water source to restrict contamination. Special focus is required for disseminating this message by the government, urban local bodies and NGOs among the people.
4.4. Advocacy with the Government
4.4.1 Easy Access of Sanitary Survey Report for Public Use
There is a need to maintain a standardised format for sanitary survey report which can be maintained by the concerned water supply and surveillance agency for use. Such reports may also be linked with the general HMIS system for public use. It will help in generating awareness and many agencies working in health, nutrition, water supply and sanitation, and the community governance sector can use such valuable information for research, specific project intervention and awareness generation among the people.
4.4.2 Establishment of a Public Grievance System for Complaints on Water Quality
A public grievance mechanism needs to be developed for lodging complaints of drinking water quality in urban areas so that immediate corrective action can be taken by the water supply agency. A time duration may be kept for rendering the service. If it is not possible to treat or improve the water in the concerned area, an alternative arrangement for providing potable water should be made.
49Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
4.4.3 Designing of Messages on Safe Water in Communication Plan
The list of questions in the sanitary inspection assess the risk to water sources. The messages in the communication plan of various departments need to focus on the dos and don’ts for safe water. For example, people must know the safe distance of the drinking water source from a latrine, why it is necessary to keep the platform of the well and tube well clean and unbroken, what is the need for fencing around a hand pump, and why it is important to have drainage channels for disposal of waste water etc.
4.4.4 Preparing the Community for Conducting a Sanitary Survey
In the current HUP sanitary survey study, MAS members and front line workers of HUP and various government departments working at the community level were involved in conducting an onsite inspection and survey. The Mahila Arogya Samiti members (women’s group) involved in sanitary inspection and water testing exercise by the H2S strip showed enthusiasm. To empower the community to assess the risk factor and understand the factors affecting the contamination of water sources, the women’s group in urban areas (MAS) under NUHM, the neighbourhood committee under SJSRY, frontline workers of various departments like ANMs, Anganwadi workers and supervisors, ASHAs, sanitary inspectors and community organisers may be trained on conducting the sanitary survey in support of water supply agencies in respective cities and towns.
4.4.5 Promotion of Household Level Water Treatment and Safe Storage
Health can be compromised when harmful bacteria, viruses, and parasites contaminate drinking water either at the source, through seepage of contaminated run-off water, or within the piped distribution system. At the same time unhygienic handling of water during transport or within the home (at Point of Use) can contaminate safe water. For these reasons, many of those who have access to improved water supply through piped connections, protected wells or other improved sources may be exposed to contaminated water. Therefore, household level water treatment and safe storage need to be promoted through various water, sanitation, health, hygiene and nutrition programmes under various allied departments and urban local bodies, especially in slum locations. 26
26 The knowledge on Point of Use water treatment of water may be percolated down to the community with involvement of NGOs, CBOs and MAS under NUHM. Suggestion: Round table consultation in New Delhi, June 6, 2014
People must know the safe distance of the
drinking water source from a latrine, why
it is necessary to keep the platform of the
well and tube well clean and unbroken,
what is the need for fencing around a hand
pump, and why it is important to have
drainage channels for disposal of waste
water etc.
50 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
ann
exur
e I :
War
d W
ise
Wat
er S
our
ce D
istr
ibut
ion
1 11 12 15 16 2 26 27 30 31 32 33 34 45 46 47 52 53 54 56 57 58 7 8 9 Tota
l
0 0 0 9 2 1 9 21 4 47 19 18 9 16 40 9 6 4 2 22 0 1 15 18 21 293
9 6 0 43 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 1
108
23 1 3 12 17 5 3 5 20 12 6 3 3 5 6 9 0 5 8 1 8 5 16 1 0
177
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
7 5 0 27 6 3 0 8 19 9 0 0 4 1 3 8 0 9 15 0 16 6 15 1 0
162
WA
RD N
OST
AN
D P
OST
BORE
WEL
WIT
HM
ECH
AN
ICA
L PU
MP
TUBE
WEL
WIT
H H
AN
D P
UM
PPR
OTE
CTE
D D
UG
WEL
UN
PRO
TEC
TED
DU
G W
EL
51Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
annexure II: Code of Slums Where Survey was Conducted
Sl. no. name of the slum Code ngo
1 ABHIRAM NAGAR BASTI 1 GJS
2 ADIBASI GAON 2 MY HEART
3 AKHANDALMANI BASTI 3 BC
4 AKHANDALMANI BASTI, UNIT-1 4 GJS
5 AMBEDKAR SAHI 5 FPAI
6 ANANDA NAGAR PALLAS PALLI 6 GJS
7 ANANTA BASTI 7 OVHA
8 AUROBINDA BASTI 8 OVHA
9 BABA TRINATH ADIVASI HARIJAN BASTI 9 BC
10 BADHIHUDA 10 GJS
11 BAJPAYEE NAGAR 11 OVHA
12 BALITOTA SAHI 12 BC
13 BAPUJINAGAR RLY. BASTI 13 GJS
14 BASTI VIKASH PARISHAD 14 FPAI
15 BHAGABATI BASTI 15 BC
16 BHAGABATI BASTI 16 GJS
17 BHAKTAMADHU NAGAR 17 GJS
18 BHARATI MATHA BHOI SAHI* 18 GJS
19 BHIMATANGI PEOPLES BASTI 19 GJS
20 BHIMPUR BHOI SAHI 20 GJS
21 BIRSA NAGAR 21 FPAI
22 BISHNUNAGAR BASTI 22 GJS
23 BRAHMESWARPATANA BHOI SAHI* 23 GJS
24 CHILIPOKHARI 24 GJS
25 CHIRGOLATOLA BASTI (PRASANT VIHAR) 25 OVHA
26 CHUNUKULI BASTI 26 OVHA
27 CS PUR MANDAP SAHI 27 OVHA
28 CS PUR MUNDA SAHI 28 OVHA
29 DAMANA BASTI 29 OVHA
30 DURGA MANDAP BASTI 30 BC
31 EKAMRA NAGAR 31 MY HEART
52 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Sl. no. name of the slum Code ngo
32 FARM GATE OUAT BASTI 32 BC
33 FARM PADA 33 BC
34 FIRE STATION BASTI UNIT 8 34 BC
35 G TYPE BASTI 35 BC
36 GADAKANA SABAR SAHI* 36 OVHA
37 GANGA NAGAR 37 BC
38 GANGA NAGAR HOSTEL SIDE 38 BC
39 GANGA NAGAR PALLI A 39 BC
40 GANGA NAGAR PALLI B 40 BC
41 GANGANAGAR BHIMPUR BASTI 41 GJS
42 GOKHIBABA LEPROSY COLONY 42 GJS
43 GOPABANDU NAGAR UNIT 8 43 BC
44 GOURINAGAR BASTI 44 GJS
45 GYANA NAGAR HUDA BHOI SAHI* 45 GJS
46 H K NAGAR* 46 OVHA
47 HARIJAN BASTI, UNIT-1 47 GJS
48 HATIASUNI 48 MY HEART
49 ISANESWAR BASTI 49 OVHA
50 JADI SAHI 50 BC
51 JAGANNATH AMBA TOTA 51 OVHA
52 JAGANNATH BIHAR 52 MY HEART
53 JAGARNATH BASTI, UNIT-1 53 GJS
54 JALESWAR COLONY PAIKA BASTI 54 BC
55 JALI MUNDA SAHI PATIA 55 OVHA
56 JANATA NAGAR 56 MY HEART
57 JAY DURGA BASTI UNIT 8 57 BC
58 JAYADEV NAGAR BHOI SAHI* 58 GJS
59 JHARANA TALA SAHI 59 GJS
60 JHARANA UPPER SAHI 60 GJS
61 JOGESWARPATAN NAIK SAHI 61 GJS
62 JOGESWARPATAN BEHERA SAHI 62 GJS
63 JOGI SAHI 63 BC
64 K K NAGAR 64 BC
65 KABARI (SABAR) SAHI* 65 OVHA
66 KALIMANDIR BASTI 66 BC
53Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Sl. no. name of the slum Code ngo
67 KALINGA BASTI, UNIT-1 67 GJS
68 KANCHA BHOI SAH* 68 GJS
69 KANDHA SAHI SIRIPUR 69 BC
70 KAPILPRASAD BASTI* 70 GJS
71 KAPILPRASAD BHATTA BHOI SAHI* 71 GJS
72 KAPILESWAR BHOI SAHI* 72 GJS
73 KAPILESWAR TANGI BHOI SAHI 73 GJS
74 KARGIL BASTI 74 GJS
75 KASTURBA NARIMAHAL BASTI, UNIT-1 75 GJS
76 KEDARPALLI BASTI 76 GJS
77 KELASAHI 77 GJS
78 KHANDUAL BASTI 78 GJS
79 KRUSHI BIHAR BASTI 79 BC
80 LAXMI NAGAR 80 FPAI
81 LAXMINARAYAN PRAGATI BASTI, UNIT-1 81 GJS
82 LINGARAJ LEPROSY COLONY 82 GJS
83 M DHIRUKUTI SAHI 83 OVHA
84 M MUNDASAHI 84 OVHA
85 MA MANGALA BASTI 85 OVHA
86 MA MANGALA BASTI (UNIT 7) 86 BC
87 MAA MANGAL BASTI, UNIT-1 87 GJS
88 MAA TARINI BASTI, UNIT-3 88 GJS
89 MAHAVEER BASTI 89 GJS
90 MAHAVEER NAGAR 90 FPAI
91 MAITRI NAGAR 91 MY HEART
92 MANGALA NAGAR 92 OVHA
93 MANGALA SAHI PATIA* 93 OVHA
94 MARUTI VIHAR 94 MY HEART
95 MATISAHI* 95 GJS
96 MAY FAIR NAGAR 96 OVHA
97 MUNDA SAHI (NILAKANTH NAGAR) 97 BC
98 NALAMUHAN & DHOBA SAHI* 98 GJS
99 NALCO BEHERA BASTI 99 OVHA
100 NARAYANI BASTI BACHELOR BARRACK 100 BC
101 NAYAGARH SAHI 101 FPAI
54 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Sl. no. name of the slum Code ngo
102 NEHRU BASTI 102 BC
103 NILACHAKRA NAGAR 103 OVHA
104 MUNDA SAHI 104 BC
105 NILAMADHAB BASTI 105 OVHA
106 NILAPADIA BASTI 106 OVHA
107 NILAPANI TANKI BASTI 107 BC
108 NIRANKARI NAGAR 108 MY HEART
109 NOLIASAHI MUSLIM BASTI 109 GJS
110 NUAGOAN JENA SAHI* 110 GJS
111 NUAGOAN KHAUDA SAHI* 111 GJS
112 NUAGOAN UPPER SAHI* 112 GJS
113 OCC BASTI 113 BC
114 OMFED BASTI* 114 OVHA
115 PANDA PARK* 115 OVHA
116 PANITANKI SAHI 116 OVHA
117 PATIA BHOI SAHI* 117 OVHA
118 PATIA TALA UPAR BHOI SAHI* 118 OVHA
119 PATRA SAHI 119 OVHA
120 PATTEL HALL BASTI 120 GJS
121 POKHARIPUT BHOI SAHI* 121 GJS
122 POWER HOUSE BASTI 122 BC
123 PRADHAN SAHI I 123 FPAI
124 PRADHAN SAHI II 124 FPAI
125 PUNAMAGATE BHOI SAHI 125 GJS
126 RADHAKRISHNA BASTI 126 OVHA
127 RADHAKRUSHNA TALASAHI-B, UNIT-6 127 GJS
128 RADHAKRUSHNA UPPER SAHI-A, UNIT-6 128 GJS
129 RAMAMANDIR BASTI 129 GJS
130 RAMESWARPATANA 130 GJS
131 RANGAMATIA TALA SAHI* 131 OVHA
132 RANGAMATIA UPAR SAHI* 132 OVHA
133 SHIKHAR CHANDI - II 133 OVHA
134 REDDY SAHI 134 MY HEART
135 RICKSHAW COLONY* 135 OVHA
136 SABAR SAHI 136 BC
55Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Sl. no. name of the slum Code ngo
137 SADAK SAHI 137 BC
138 SAMANTARAPUR BASTI 138 GJS
139 SAMANTARAPUR TELENGA SAHI 139 GJS
140 SANTALA BASTI 140 FPAI
141 SANTOSHI NAGAR 141 FPAI
142 SARALA NAGAR 142 OVHA
143 SARANAPALLI 143 FPAI
144 SASTRI NAGAR BASTI UPAR SAHI 144 BC
145 SATYANARAYAN NAGAR 145 FPAI
146 SCIENCE PARK MAHAVVER BASTI 146 OVHA
147 SHAKTI VIHAR 147 FPAI
148 SIKHARACHANDI III 148 OVHA
149 SIKHARCHANDI - I 149 OVHA
150 SIMILI BASTI 150 BC
151 SINDURPADA BHAT BHOI SAHI 151 GJS
152 SION SRAMIKA BASTI 152 OVHA
153 SIRIPUR SABAR SAHI* 153 BC
154 SITANATH NAGAR 154 OVHA
155 SITAPUR BASTI 155 BC
156 SLUM INDIRA MAIDAN 156 BC
157 SRIKRISHNA NAGAR 157 MY HEART
158 SRIRAM NAGAR 158 FPAI
159 SWADHIN NAGAR 159 MY HEART
160 SWEEPER COLONY, UNIT-6 160 GJS
161 TARINI BASTI,UNIT-6 161 GJS
162 TARINI NAGAR Basti 162 OVHA
163 TARINI NAGAR 163 FPAI
164 TARINIBASTI, GANDAMUNDA 164 GJS
165 TATIBASTI (NEAR ADIVASI GROUND) 165 GJS
166 TRINATH BASTI (CBI OFFICE) 166 BC
167 TULASI BASTI 167 BC
168 VENKATESWAR BASTI 168 BC
56 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
annexure III: repeat residual Chlorine test regimeRepeat residual chlorine testing regime for stand post
Slum Code
Ward No.
Sample Code Ist round IInd Round IIIrd Round
Chlorine Quantity
(ppm)
Chlorine Quantity
(ppm)
Date Chlorine Quantity
(ppm)
Date
161 46 HUP/161/1/A 0.60 0.4 21.10.2013
127 46 HUP/127/1/A 0.60 0.3 21.10.2013
127 46 HUP/127/1/C 0.60 0.4 21.10.2013
138 56 HUP/138/1/A 1.50 1 09.10.2013
138 56 HUP/138/1/B 1.50 1.1 09.10.2013
67 46 HUP/67/1/B 1.00 0.3 21.10.2013
165 46 HUP/165/1/A 3.00 0.6 04.10.2013 (4 PM)
0.3 9.10.2013 (9.30am)
165 46 HUP/165/1/B 1.00 0.6 04.10.2013 (4 PM)
0.3 9.10.2013 (9.30am)
165 46 HUP/165/1/C 3.00 0.6 04.10.2013 (4 PM)
0.3 9.10.2013 (9.30am)
165 46 HUP/165/1/D 2.20 0 0.4 9.10.2013 (9.30am)
165 46 HUP/165/1/E 1.60 0.4 04.10.2013 (4 PM)
0.3 9.10.2013 (9.30am)
165 46 HUP/165/1/F 2.50 0 0.4 9.10.2013 (9.30am)
45 53 HUP/45/1/B 1.10 0.7 10.10.2013 (9.30am)
98 52 HUP/98/1/C 1.50 0.3 10.10.2013 (9.30am)
98 52 HUP/98/1/A 2.20 0.6 10.10.2013 (9.30am)
98 52 HUP/98/1/B 5.50 0.4 10.10.2013 (9.30am)
60 47 HUP/60/1/F 0.80 0.1 9.10.2013 (10.30am)
4 46 HUP/4/1/A 0.60 0.4 21.10.2013
4 46 HUP/4/1/B 0.70 0.4 21.10.2013
160 46 HUP/160/1/F 0.70 0.4 21.10.2013
160 46 HUP/160/1/B 0.90 0.5 21.10.2013
160 46 HUP/160/1/E 0.80 0.4 21.10.2013
57Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
annexure IV: Sanitary Survey formats
I. Type of facility: OPEN DUG WELL
1. General information:
i. City/Town __________________________________________________________________
ii. District __________________________________________________________________
iii. Health centre __________________________________________________________________
iv. Slum name __________________________________________________________________
v. Ward No __________________________________________________________________
2. Code no _________________ Address/ land mark of water facility __________________________
3. Water authority / community representative signature ____________________________________
4. Date of visit ________________________________________________________________________
5. Water sample collected? ____________ if yes, Sample no _________________________________
6. Whether water is safe and useable?
(If the colour of the water sample taken in a H2S vial does not change to black in 24-48 hours it is safe and useable)
II. Specific diagnostic information for assessment Risk
Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as answers to the following questions to assess risk
1. Is there a latrine within 10 m of the well? Y N
2. Is the nearest latrine on a higher ground than the well? Y N
3. Is there any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) Y N within 10 m of the well?
4. Is the drainage poor, causing stagnant water within 2 m of the well? Y N
5. Is there a faulty drainage channel? Is it broken, permitting ponding? Y N
6. Is the wall (parapet) around the well inadequate, allowing surface water Y N to enter the well?
7. Is the concrete floor less than 1 m wide around the well? Y N
8. Are the walls of the well inadequately sealed at any point for 3m below the ground? Y N
9. Are there any cracks in the concrete floor around the well which could Y N permit water to enter the well?
10. Are the rope and bucket left in such a position that they may become contaminated? Y N
58 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
11. Does the installation require fencing? Y N
Total score of risks ____________________ /11
To calculate the risk at water source, please count all the responses marked ‘yes’ in response to the above questions.
Contamination risk score: 9-11 very high 6-8 high 3-5 intermediate 0-2 low
III. Results and recommendations
Suggestions regarding prevention and precautions were given to the community members or their authorised representative after the assessment of the risk from 1-11.
Signature of those surveying team: ____________________
I Type of facility: covered dUg well witH Hand-PUmP
1. General information:
i. City/Town __________________________________________________________________
ii. District __________________________________________________________________
iii. Health centre __________________________________________________________________
iv. Slum name __________________________________________________________________
v. Ward No __________________________________________________________________
2. Code no_____________________ Address/ land mark of water facility ______________________
3. Water authority / community representative signature ____________________________________
4. Date of visit __________________________________________________________________
5. Water sample collected? ________________________ if yes, Sample No _____________________
6. Whether water is safe and useable?
(If the colour of the water sample taken in a H2S vial does not change to black in 24-48 hours, it is safe and useable)
59Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
II Specific diagnostic information for assessment Risk
Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as answers to the following questions to assess risk
1. Is there a latrine within 10 m of the well and hand-pump? Y N
2. Is the nearest latrine on higher ground than the hand-pump? Y N
3. Is there any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish) Y N
within 10 m of the hand-pump?
4. Is the drainage poor, causing stagnant water within 2 m of the cement floor Y N
of the hand-pump?
5. Is there a faulty drainage channel? Is it broken, permitting ponding? Y N
6. Is the wall (parapet) around the hand-pump inadequate, allowing animals in? Y N
7. Is the concrete floor less than 1 m wide around the hand-pump? Y N
8. Is there any ponding on the concrete floor around the hand-pump? Y N
9. Are there any cracks in the concrete floor around the hand-pump Y N which could permit water to enter the hand-pump?
10. Is the hand-pump loose at the point of attachment to the base so that Y N water could enter the casing?
11. Is the cover of the well unsanitary? Y N
12. Are the walls of the well inadequately sealed at any point for 3 m Y N below ground level?
Total score of risks___________________________/12
To calculate the risk at water source, please count all the “yes” marked in response to the above questions
Contamination risk score: 9-12 very high, 6-8 high, 3-5 intermediate, 0-2 low
Results and recommendations
Suggestions regarding prevention and precautions were given to the community members or their authorised representative after the assessment of the risk from 1-12.
Signature of those surveying team: ____________________
60 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
I Type of facility: TUBEWELL WITH HAND-PUMP
1. General information:
i. City/Town __________________________________________________________________
ii. District __________________________________________________________________
iii. Health centre __________________________________________________________________
iv. Slum name __________________________________________________________________
v. Ward No __________________________________________________________________
2. Code no _________________ Address/ land mark of water facility __________________________
3. Water authority / community representative signature ____________________________________
4. Date of visit __________________________________________________________________
5. Water sample collected? _____________________ if yes, Sample No _______________________
6. Whether water is safe and useable?
(If the colour of the water sample taken in a H2S vial does not change to black in 24-48 hours, it is safe and useable)
II Specific diagnostic information for assessment Risk
Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as answers of the following questions to assess risk
1. Is there a latrine within 10 m of the hand-pump? Y N
2. Is the nearest latrine on higher ground than the hand-pump? Y N
3. Is there any other source of pollution ( e.g. animal excreta, rubbish, Y N surface water)within 10 m of the hand-pump?
4. Is the drainage poor, causing stagnant water within 2 m of the hand-pump? Y N
5. Is the hand-pump drainage channel faulty? Is it broken, permitting ponding? Y N Does it need cleaning?
6. Is the fencing around the hand-pump inadequate, allowing animals in? Y N
7. Is the concrete floor less than 1 m wide all around the hand-pump? Y N
8. Is there any ponding on the concrete floor around the hand-pump? Y N
9. Are there any cracks in the concrete floor around the hand-pump which Y N could permit water to enter the well ?
10. Is the hand-pump loose at the point of attachment to the base so that Y N water could enter the casing?
Total score of risks _________________________/10
To calculate the risk at water source, please count all the “yes” marked in response to the above questions
Contamination risk score: 9-10 very high 6-8 high 3-5 intermediate 0-2 low
61Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
III Results and recommendations
Suggestions regarding prevention and precautions were given to the community members or their authorised representative after the assessment of the risk from 1-10.
Signature of the surveying team: __________________________
I Type of facility: DEEP BOREHOLE WITH MECHANICAL PUMP
1. General information:
i. City/Town __________________________________________________________________
ii. District __________________________________________________________________
iii. Health centre __________________________________________________________________
iv. Slum name __________________________________________________________________
v. Ward No __________________________________________________________________
2. Code no. _________________ Address/ land mark of water facility __________________________
3. Water authority / community representative signature ____________________________________
4. Date of visit __________________________________________________________________
5. Water sample collected? ________________________ if yes, Sample no _____________________
6. Whether water is safe and can be useable?
(If the colour of the water sample taken in a H2S vial does not change to black in 24-48 hours, it is safe and useable)
II Specific diagnostic information for assessment Risk
Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as answers to the following questions to assess the risk
1. Is there a latrine or sewer within 15-20 m of the pump house? Y N
2. Is the nearest latrine a pit latrine that percolates to soil, i.e. unsewered? Y N
3. Is there any other source of pollution (e.g. animal excreta, rubbish, Y N surface water) within 10 m of the borehole?
4. Is there an uncapped well within 15-20 m of the borehole? Y N
5. Is the drainage area around the pump house faulty? Y N
6. Is it broken, permitting ponding and /or leakage to ground? Y N
62 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
7. Is the fencing around the installation damaged in any way which would Y N permit any unauthorised entry or allow animals access?
8. Is the floor of the pumphouse permeable to water? Y N
9. Is the well seal unsanitary? Y N
10. Is the chlorination working poorly? Y N
11. Is chlorine absent at the sampling tap? Y N
Total score of risks _______________________./10
To calculate the risk at water source, please count all the ‘yes’ marked in the response to the above mentioned questions
Contamination risk score: 9-10 very high 6-8 high 3-5 intermediate 0-2 low
III Results and recommendations
Suggestions regarding prevention and precautions were given to the community members or their authorised representative after the assessment of the risk from 1-10.
Signature of surveying team: ____________________________________
1 Type of facility: STAND POST (Pipe water supply) General information:
vi. City/Town __________________________________________________________________
vii. District __________________________________________________________________
viii. Health centre __________________________________________________________________
ix. Slum name __________________________________________________________________
x. Ward No __________________________________________________________________
7. Code no___________________ Address/ land mark of water facility _________________________
8. Water authority / community representative signature ____________________________________
9. Date of visit __________________________________________________________________
10. Water sample collected? _____________________ if yes, Sample No. _______________________
11. Whether water is safe and can be useable?
63Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
(If the colour of the water sample taken in a H2S vial does not change to black in 24-48 hours, it is safe and useable)
12. Presence of chlorine in ppm in the sample ______________________________________________
IV. Specific diagnostic information for assessment Risk
Please mark ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as answers to the following questions to assess risk
1. Is there a leakage in the pipes or tap(s) of stand post? Y N
2. Is the area around stand post insanitary (e.g. presence of animal excreta, rubbish) Y N
3. Is there stagnant water surrounding the stand post? Y N
4. Is there a latrine or sewerage within 10 m of the stand post? Y N
5. Has there been discontinuity of water supply in the last 10 days? Y N
6. Are there any leaks in the distribution pipes of the stand post? Y N
7. Is the stand post below ground level? Y N
8. Have users reported pipe breaks in the last week? Y N
9. Is the plinth of the stand post cracked or eroded? Y N
10. Do animals have access to the area around the stand post? Y N
11. Are there any cracks or leakage on the attached tank (if any) Y N
Total score of risks _________________/11
To calculate the risk at water source, please count all the ‘yes’ marked in the response to the above questions
Contamination risk score: 10-11 very high 6-9 high 3-5 intermediate 0-2 low
V. Results and recommendations
Suggestions regarding prevention and precautions were given to the community members or their authorised representative after the assessment of risk from 1-11.
Signature of the surveying team: _____________________________
64 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
annexure V: Source Wise risk factors Segregation matrix
type of risk factors
Stand-post tube Well with hand pump
bore well fitted with mechanical pump
open dug well
Hazard factors Q2;Q3 Q1;Q3;Q4;84 Q1-Q5; Q1;Q3Q4;
Path Way Factors Q1;Q4-8;Q10 Q2;Q5-Q7;Q9;Q10
Q6;Q8-Q11 Q2;Q5;Q7-Q11
Indirect factors Q9 Q6 Q7 Q6
Q# is the number of diagnostic question from sanitary survey formats of various sources.
65Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
references
Alam, A., & Rahaman, M. (2011, February). Assessment of Dugwell as an Alternative Water Supply Options in Arsenic Affected Areas of Bangladesh. International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 11(1)
Bhunia, R., Hutin, Y., Ramakrishnan, R., Pal, N., Sen, T., & Murhekar, M. (2009, April 27). A Typhoid fever outbreak in a slum of South Dum Dum municipality, West Bengal, 2007: Evidence for food-borne and water-borne transmission. BMC Public Health, 9, 115. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-115
Bhunia, R., Ramkrishnan, R., Hutin, Y., & Gupte, M. D. (2009, March-April). Cholera outbreak secondary to contaminated pipe water in an urban area, Wets Bengal, India, 2006. (S. J. Bahtia, & B. S. Ramkrishna, Eds.) Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, 28(2), 62-64. Retrieved August 2014, from http://www.indianjgastro.com/index.php
CDC. (1990). Chlorine Residual Testing FactSheet. Center For Disease Control- SWS Project. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/safewater/chlorine-residual-testing.html
Das, A., Manickam, P., Hutin, Y., Pal, B. B., Chhotray, G. p., Kar, S. K., & Gupte, M. D. (2009, October). An Outbreak of Cholera Assocaited with an Unprotected Well in Parbatia, Orissa, Eastern India. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 27(5), 646-51. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2928086&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
EPA, U. (1986). Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria. Washington D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ferretti, E., Bonadonna, L., Lucentini, L., & Libera, S. (2010). A Case Study of Sanitary Survey on Community Drinking Water Supplies after severe(post-Tsunami) Flooding event. Ann Ist Super Sanita, 46(3), 236-241. doi:DOI: 10.4415/ANN_10_03_03
Godfrey, S., & Howard, G. (2004). Water Safety Plans(WSP) for Urban Piped Water Supply in Developing Countries. Leicestershire, UK: Water, Engineering and Development Centre . Retrieved August 2014, from http:www.lboro.ac.uk/wedc/projects/iram/index.htm
Godfrey, S., Timo, F., & Smith, M. (2006, September ). Microbial risk assessment and managemnet of shallow ground water sources in Lichinga,Mozambique. Water and Environment, 20(3), 194-202
Haque, F., Hossain, M. J., Kundu, S. K., Naser, A. M., Rahman, M., & Luby, S. P. (2013). Cholera Outbreaks In Urban Bangladesh In 2011. Epidemiology:Open Access, 3(2). doi:10.4172/2161-1165.1000126
Harp, D. L. (2002). Current Technology of Chlorine Analysis for water and wastewater. USA: Hach Company. Retrieved February 2014
Howard, A. G. (2002). Water Supply Survelliance: A Referance Manual (1st ed.). Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK: WEDC, Loughborough University, UK. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.lboro.ac.uk/wedc/publications/wss-rm.htm
Howard, G., Pedley, S., Barrett, M., Nalubega, M., & Johal, K. (2003, December). Risk factors contributing to microbiological contamination of shallow groundwater in Kampala, Uganda. Water Research, 37(20), 3421-3429. doi:DOI: 10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00235-5
66 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
Howards, G., Godfrey, S., & Boonyakarnkul, T. (2006). Sanitary Completion of Protection Works around Groundwater Sources. In O. Schmoll, G. Howard, J. Chilton, & I. Chorus (Eds.), Protecting Groundwater for Health (1st ed., pp. 493-513). London, UK: IWA Publishing. Retrieved February 2014
LeChevallier, M. W., Gullick, R. W., & Karim, M. (1999). The Potential for Health Risks from Intrusion of Contaminants into the Distribution System from Pressure transients. Pennsylvania: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Lloyd, B. J., & Bartram, J. K. (1991). Surveillance solutions to microbiological problems in water quality control in developing countries . Water Science Technology, 24(2), 61-75. Retrieved July 2014, from http://www.iwaponline.com
Lloyd, B., & Helmer, R. (1991). Surveillance of Drinking Water Quality in Rural Areas. London: Longman.
Luby, S. P., Gupta, S. K., Sheikh, M. A., Johnston, R. B., Ram, P. K., & Islam, M. S. (2008). Tubewell water quality and predictors of contamination in three flood-prone areas in Bangladesh. Journal of Applied Microbilogy, 105(4), 1002-1008. Retrieved February 2014
Mohanty, L. N., & Mohanty, S. (2005). Slum in India (1st ed.). Delhi, India: S.B Nagia, APH Publishing Corporation. Retrieved August 2014, from http://books.google.co.in/books?
Morris, J. C. (1978). Modern Chemical Methods in Water and Waste Water Treatment . Delft: The Neatherland: International Institute for Hydrualic and Environmental Engineering.
Mosley, L. M., & Sharp, D. S. (2005). The Hydrogen-sulphide(H2S) paper-strip test for monitoring drinking water quality in the Pacific Island. SOPAC. SOPAC. Retrieved February 2014
Nasinyama, G. W., McEwen, S. A., Wilson, J. B., Waltner-Toews, D., Gyles, C. L., & Opuda-Asibo, J. (2000, September). RISK FACTORS FOR ACUTE Diarrhoea among inhabitants of kampala Distrcits, Ugnada. South African Medical Journal, 90(9), 891-898. Retrieved from http://archive.samj.org.za
O’Connor, R. (2002). Report of the Walkerton Enquiry , Part One: The Events of May 2000 and Related issues(A Summary). Ontario Minsitry of the Attorney General , Ontario. Retrieved Febryary 2014, from http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/WI_Summary.pdf
Odonkers, T., & Ampofo, K. (2013). Escherichia Coli as an Indicato of Bactriological Quality of Water : an overview. Microbiology Research, 4(2)
Olsen, S. J., Miller, G., Breuer, T., Kennedy, M., Higgins, C., Walford, J., . . . Mead, P. (2002, April). A Waterborne Outbreak of Escherichia Coli O157:H7 Infections and Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: Implecations for Rural Water Systems. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 8(4), 370-375. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2730238/pdf/00-0218_FinalR.pdf
Oluwasanya, G., Smith, J., & Carter, R. (2011). Towards appropriate sanitary inspection tools for self supply systems in developing countries. THE FUTURE OF WATER , SANITATION AND HYGIENE : INNOVATION , ADAPTATION AND ENGAGEMENT IN A CHANGING WORLD . Loughborough: WEDC,Loughborough University . Retrieved August 2014
Prescott, S. C., & Winslow, C. E. (1904). Elements of Water Bacteriology, with Special Referance to Sanitary Water Analysis . New York: John Wiley & Sonos
Robertson, J. B., & Edberg, S. C. (1997, January). Natural Protection of Spring and Well Drinking Water
67Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
against Surface Microbial Contamination.I hydrogeological parameters. . Critical Review in Microbiology, 23(2), 143-178. Retrieved February 2014
Robertson, W., Standfield, G., Howard, G., & Bartram, J. (2003). Monitoring the Qulity of Drinking Water during Storage and Distribution. In Assessing Microbial Safety of Drinking Water (pp. 179-204). London, UK: IWA Publishing . Retrieved July 2014
Sailaja, B., MURHEKAR, M. V., Hutin, Y. J., Kuruva, S., Murthy, S. P., Jowaher Reddy, K. S., . . . Gupte, M. D. (2009, February). Outbreak of waterborne hepatitis E in Hyderabad, India. Epidemiology and Infection, 137(2), 234-240. doi:10.1017/S0950268808000952
Sajjad, H. (2014, March 20). Living standards and health problems of lesser fortunate slum dwellers:Evidence from an Indian city. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy, 2(2), 54-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijepp.20140202.13
Subbaraman, R., Shitole, S., Shitole, T., Sawant, K., O’Brien, J., Bloom, D. E., & Deshmukh, A. P. (2013). The social ecology of water in Mumbai slum: failures in water quality,quantity and reliability. BMC Public Health(173). doi:doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-173
Trevidei, B. K., Gandhi, H. S., & Shukla, M. K. (1971, November). Bacterilogicla Water Quality and Incidence of Waterborne Diseases in Rural Population . Indian Journal of Medical Science, 25(11), 795-801. Retrieved February 2014
WHO. (1993). Guideline for Drinking Water Quality (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Geneva: World Health Orgnization. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/2edvol1i.pdf?ua=1
WHO. (1997). Guidelines for drinking-water quality (2 ed., Vol. 3). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved February 2104, from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwqvol32ed.pdf
WHO. (1999). Health based monitoring of recreational waters: the feasibility of new approach (the Annapolis Protocal). Sustainable Development and Healthy Enviroenmnet. Geneva: World Health Organization
WHO. (2002). Evaluation of H2S Method for Detection of Fecal Contamination of Drinking Water. Geneva: Water Sanitation and Health Department of Protection and the Human Environemnt , WHO
WHO. (2003). Guidelines for safe recreatioanl water enviornments.Vol1. Coastal and Fresh Water. Geneva: World Health Organization
WHO, & UNEP. (1988). Urbanization and its implications for Child Health: potential for action. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39385#sthash.STuQXWk7.dpuf
WHO, & UNICEF. (2000). Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment. USA: WHO/UNICEF.
WHO, & UNICEF. (2010). Progress On Sanitation And Drinking Water 2010 Update. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved February 2014, from http://www.wssinfo.org/fileadmin/user_upload/resources/1278061137-JMP_report_2010_en.pdf
68 Sanitary Survey of Public Drinking Water SourceS
acronyms
AWW Anganwadi Worker
ASHA Accredited Social Health Activist
BCC Behavioural Change Communication
BMC Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation
FAS Ferrous Ammonium Sulfate
FIO Fecal Indicative Organism
GOI Government of India
HUP Health of the Urban Poor
HMIS Health Management Information System
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
H2S Hydrogen Sulphide
MAS Mahila Arogya Samiti
NUHM National Urban Health Mission
PFI Population Foundation of India
PHEO Public Health Engineering Organisation
POU Point of Use
PPM Parts Per Million
SJSRY Swarna Jayanti Sahari Rojgar Yojana
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
ULB Urban Local Bodies
USEPA United States Environment Protection Agency
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WHO World Health Organization
HealtH of tHe Urban Poor ProgramPopulation Foundation of India
B-28, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delh110016Tel: +91-11-43894100, Fax: +91-11-43894199
Email: [email protected]
www.populationfoundation.in
This document is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of the Population Foundation of India and do not necessarily reflect the veiws of USAID or the United States Government.
HU
P/W
ASH
/01/
2015