Sei sulla pagina 1di 19

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, DESIGN, ART AND


TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
CIV3205 PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING

ASSIGNMENT

GROUP 1

LECTURER: DR.SEMIYAGA SWAIB


NAME REGISTRATION STUDENT NUMBER SIGN
NUMBER

BAMUHIMBISE 16/U/189 216000374


GILBERT

AYESIGWA RONNIE 16/U/166 216000427

CHESURO BERNARD 16/U/246 216000375


BORRIS

KIRYOWA ANDREW 16/U/1831 216001844

LUTAAYA HARRISON 16/U/18818 216020404

MUGERWA AKRAM 16/U/639 216000100

MUNEEZA UMUHOZA 16/U/693 216000361


LETICIA

MURUNGI ROGERS 16/U/19720/PSA 216021593

NAKALYOWA ANGEL 16/U/813 216000059

NATTABI ANGEL 16/U939 216000369

WAISWA RONALD 15/U/1723 215001683

MURAMUZI EDWIN 15/U/20113/PSA 215020499


Table of Contents
CASE STUDY ON KATANGA SLUM ................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1
LOCATION OF KATANGA ........................................................................................................................... 1
POPULATION OF KATANGA ....................................................................................................................... 1
SANITARY FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................. 1
Sanitation Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 4
DESIGN OF THE CURRENT COMMUNAL POUR FLUSH TOILET .................................................................. 4
Operation and Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 6
DESIGN CRITERIA/STANDARDS ............................................................................................................. 6
CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 7
RECOMMENDATIONS. .............................................................................................................................. 7
REDESIGNED POUR-FLUSH TOILET............................................................................................................ 8
SECTION B ................................................................................................................................................... 11
WASTE COMPOSITION CHAIN ................................................................................................................. 12
WASTE COMPOSITION DETERMINATION ............................................................................................... 13
References .................................................................................................................................................. 16

i|Page
CASE STUDY ON KATANGA SLUM
INTRODUCTION
A slum is a heavily populated urban inform settlement characterized by substandard housing
and low standards of living.

LOCATION OF KATANGA
It is located in the valley between Mulago hospital and Makerere University. It covers an area of
50.8 acres from Wandegeya to Kubiri and is divided into two administrative LC1 zones that is
Busia and Kimwanyi.

POPULATION OF KATANGA
There were 5,377 people (Avuni, 2011), 20,000 people (Godfrey,2017) and we found 40,000
people including hostels about 5% of the population according the Chairman Bagonza Thomas.
The persons per household are in a range of 4-5 people (James et al, 2017) but according to the
chairman the range is between 1-5 people.

SANITARY FACILITIES
According to World Health Organization, sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities
and services for the safe disposal of human urine and faeces.
To assess the sanitation facilities in Katanga, we looked at the operation and maintenance of
the water facilities because the sanitation facilities are waterborne. This was to give us a
measure of the availability of water that is to be used in the toilets, as well as its quality. In
Katanga, there are only pipe water systems and protected springs. The springs are two in
number while the tapstands are 30 with 7 being public stands. One spring is inside the slum and
the other is near the football pitch just at the slum borders.
The current status of the water sanitary facilities was deduced from the sanitary inspection
carried out on the facilities. A summary of the risk status is in the table below.

Facility Risk score Remark


Private piped water 5/10 Medium risk
Public piped water 1/10 Low risk
Spring inside slum 5/10 Medium risk
Spring near football pitch 4/10 Medium risk

The score is based on the questionnaires shown below. The questionnaires were extracted from
the WHO standards of drinking water.

1|Page
2|Page
3|Page
Sanitation Facilities
The sanitations facilities available are communal pour flush toilets. They are ten in number with
three provided by the L.C. 1 and 7 private owned. A fee of 200 shillings is asked from the
members before they use the toilets for operation and maintenance costs.
Since there are 38,000 people in Katanga, we approximate the number of users per toilet
compartment to be 3,800 since individuals do not have personal toilets. The is put the
percentage of people with toilets at 0.3% with 99.7% not having toilets or latrines.

DESIGN OF THE CURRENT COMMUNAL POUR FLUSH TOILET


The toilet is composed of 5 components; a squatting pan a water seal, a superstructure,
pipework and a leach pit.

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of a pour-flush toilet

4|Page
The toilets were once cistern-flush toilets. Because the cistern flush toilets were using too much
water, the cisterns were disconnected. The remaining system is a pour flush toilet. The pour
flush toilet is connected to a pit directly below the slab by a single straight pipe fixed in place
with light mortar and covered with earth. The pit has a tap connected to it at the bottom.
During a storm, the residents open the tap to the pit and the untreated faecal sludge is released
into the drain.

Pipe for cistern


Figure 2 Cistern-flush turned to pour-flush

5|Page
Operation and Maintenance
The facilities are partitioned into male and female wings. This maintains hygiene especially for
women who would be exposed to urinary tract diseases if they used urinals like for men. It also
ensures privacy for both genders.
The squatting pans of some of the toilets are broken. This leaves the rough textured slab
exposed to receive the faecal matter. The faecal matter can easily stick on the slab which makes
the toilet unhygienic and difficult to clean.
All the hand washing sinks are no longer functioning. They are broken, clogged and have no
direct water supply. There is no drum availed specifically for hand washing. We suspected that
the residents do not wash their hands after using the toilet.
Water for flushing is availed in drums to account for the 200 shillings that people pay before
they use the toilets.
The officials that are stationed outside clean the toilets every after a day.
DESIGN CRITERIA/STANDARDS

 These toilets require 1-3 liters for each flush. (WHO) and should be used where there’s a
good level of water service.
 The water seal in the defecation hole should be partially filled with water to prevent
odours and flies from coming back up the pipe.
 Water seals and squatting pan should be made out of plastic or ceramic to prevent clogs
and to make cleaning easy. The optimal depth of the water seal head is approximately 2
cm to minimize the water required to flush the excreta.

 The water seal should be manufactured using materials that can withstand rodding and
fairly rough treatment when blocked. The recommended materials are concrete, glazed
clay, ceramics, high density polyethylene.
 The pipe diameter should lie in the range of 6.5 cm -8.5cm in diameter.
 The design life of the pit is about 2 years.
 Hand washing facilities
Since there are some users that use anal cleansing because of religious and preference over dry
methods, the users will achieve only very limited health benefits from using the toilets if they
do not wash their hands thoroughly after anal cleansing.
 Facilities should be designed to be accessible to children so that they do not opt for
disposing of their wastes from outside the toilet as they would find it more convenient.
 The pits are supposed to be lined to strengthen the walls and to minimize infiltration in
case the water table is near.
 The soil should be adequately permeable for infiltration in cases where the water table
is deep.

6|Page
CONCLUSIONS
Eventhough good work has been done in Katanga slum by the Government of Uganda, Non -
Government Organizations, more work has to be done if the conditions in the slum are to be
improved to the standards required by World Health Organization.
The sanitary facilities in Katanga are in poor condition because they are too populated, have no
functioning hand washing facilities, have broken parts, have no proper sewer system and
people do not know the standards they are supposed to follow to maintain the toilets in good
working condition.

RECOMMENDATIONS.
We suggest the following solutions;
 The L.C.1 committee should avail the community with hand washing facilities in forms of
drums, or to fix the no longer functioning wash basins with a tap. In addition, soap
should be provided to prevent the spread of diarrheal diseases. The drum should be
separated from the ones used to collect water for flushing, otherwise no significant
improvement in sanitation will be made.
 The L.C.1 committee should hire health education officials to encourage and motivate
hand washing to prevent the spread of diseases like diarrheal diseases e.g. diarrhea,
dysentery, etc. The officials should teach people the standards and the steps they can
undertake to follow these standards. This can be done efficiently by extending the
sensitization sessions in religious centers like mosques and churches where a large
number of people can easily be found. This exercise should be done regularly for
consistent results.
 There should be constant water supply around the toilet so that people can flush with
the amount of water specified in the standards. Also to ensure that the conduit is partly
filled with water. This can be achieved by availing bigger tanks outside the toilets.

 The toilets should be cleaned regularly to maintain hygiene and prevent the buildup of
stains.
 To reduce water requirements for flushing and to prevent clogging, we recommend that
dry cleansing materials and sanitary towels used for menstrual hygiene be collected
separately and not flushed down the toilet. The L.C. 1 committee should avail containers
for depositing the sanitary towels and hire individuals to empty the containers regularly.
 Proper pipe work should be built to transport the sludge to a treatment centre.
 More toilet compartments should be constructed so that the number of people using
each compartment does not exceed 20. This can be done by setting up storied
structures for the sanitary facilities since there is not enough land in a slum for all these
toilets.

7|Page
REDESIGNED POUR-FLUSH TOILET
We redesigned a pour flash toilet that is meeting the standards as shown below following
the procedure layed out by Duncan Mara, 1985;
The hydraulic loading rate (q) is the total volume of liquids entering the leach pit and is
expressed in liters per day.
= + + + + (Mara, 1985)
Where Nf- number of times feaces are passed per day usually 2-3 times
Vw – volume of flushing water, liters/flush
Vc – volume of water used for anal cleansing, litres/cleansing
Vf – volume of faeces passed in lcd, about 0.35kg/day
Nu-number of times urine passed per person per day
a – 1 if toilet is flushed after urine is passed, 0 if not
Vu- volume of urine produced liters per capital per day typically 1.2
For redesigning the pour flush;
For communal toilets, assume 20 users
Nf- 2 stools per person per day
Vw – 2 liters
Vc – 0.5 liters
Vf +Vu – 1.5 liters/person day
a–0
Waste flow, q in lcd
= + + + +

= 2 2 + 0.5 + 1.5
= 6.5
Note: lcd- liters per capita per day
Total wasteflow, Q in liters/day
= 6.5 × 20
= 130 /

8|Page
Solids storage volume, Vs

! ="# $ #% &' × $' ( × '#%) &( #


The sludge accumulation rate for dry pits with water for anal cleansing is
30liters/person/day (Mara, 1985) with a minimum design life of 2years.

∴ ! = 30 × 10+, × 2 × 20

! = 1.2%,
Taking a dry pit of 750mm internal diameter, equivalent depth (H) is 2.7m
Depth (H)
0.75/ × 0
-=
4
- = 0.442%/
1.2
∴2 3 ℎ 5 =
0.442
5 = 2.7%
Therefore, infiltrative area, Ai
-6 = 7 ' % × 3ℎ 5
External diameter d= 750mm+(2x65) [standard brick]
d= 880mm
-6 = 0.88 × 2.7
-6 = 2.376%/
The soil at in the area was sandy loams due to the high organic waste dumped in the area
hence had loams in the soil. The long-term infiltrative loading rate for such a type is 30
liters/m2 day (Mara, 1985)
Therefore, infiltration area due to total waste flow, A
9& : ( &:
-=
;&'$ − % '( = & '$
130
-=
30
= 4.3%/

9|Page
Since the areas are different, there needs to be an adjustment in the pit dimensions.
Since the wastewater requires a larger area for infiltration, it becomes the critical design
area other than the one got via the solids (2.376m2)
Thus, fixing the depth at 3m, the new external diameter is got as;
-6 = 7 ' % × 3ℎ 5
4.3 = 7 ' % ×3
∴ >7 ' % = 1.4%
New internal diameter;
= 1400 − 2 × 65
= 1270%%
Increase diameter to 1.3m, adding a 0.5m clearance to the depth, new depth is 3.5m
Dimensions of dry pit
Internal diameter-1300mm, Depth -3500mm
For the community to have better sanitation, the LC 1 should ensure more pour-flush toilets
of the proposed design are constructed to reduce on the discharging of the feacal sludge in
the drainage channels.

10 | P a g e
SECTION B
Solid waste management involves a number of Stakeholders. These include residents, local councils and
KCCA. Each stakeholder pays an important role in solid waste management as highlighted below;

1. Residents.
 Manage waste disposal at household level i.e. collection and temporally storage
 Ensure place of residence are clean and free of waste.
 Take collected household waste to the dump site.

2. Local Council.
 Control the whole waste disposal program.
 Ensure proper disposal of waste.
 Fine residents for improper disposal of waste in drains.
 Liaise with KCCA to ensure routine collection of waste from dump site.
3. KCCA.
 Collect waste from the dump site.
 Provide trucks from waste transportation once a week.
4. Bottle collectors.
 Sort waste for bottle collection at the dumpsite.
 Collect dumped bottles within the slum.
 Sell collected bottles to recycling companies.

Once the waste is collected at the household level in sacks, polythene bags and boxes, it is deposited to
the temporary dump site where it is sorted for example plastic and metals are removed and sold to the
recycling companies employing many residents with in Katanga. Later the waste is transported by KCCA
trucks to the landfill in Kitezi for further treatment and deposit.

Figure 3 Bottle collector

11 | P a g e
WASTE COMPOSITION CHAIN
The waste chain includes household level, temporary storage, transportation, disposal and recycling.

Household level

 Collection of waste thus from house and around.

 Packing the unsorted waste in sacks.

Temporary Storage

 The waste from the houses is moved individually and sometimes hired wheel barrow collectors
to the dumpsite.

 The waste at the site is sorted for bottles by the bottle collectors.

Transportation

 Waste from the dumpsite is moved to the disposal site.

 KCCA provides a truck to move the waste to the disposal site.

Disposal

 The waste from the dumpsite is moved to the landfill.

 This involves organics, paper, plastics.

Recycling

 The collected bottles are taken to the recycling plants.

12 | P a g e
WASTE COMPOSITION DETERMINATION
We picked a sample of the stored waste and attained the waste composition by weighing different
components of the waste.

Figure 4 Weighing of waste

The total mass of the mixed sample was 6.85kg,

Organics had mass 6.24kg, hard plastic 0.12kg, paper 0.06kg, soft plastics 0.31kg and other wastes like
glass, textiles, dust from houses had a mass of 0.12kg.

To get the percentage composition of each waste type;

Organics
6.24
= × 100
6.85
= 91%

Hard plastics

13 | P a g e
0.12
= × 100
6.85
= 1.8%
Paper
0.06
= × 100
6.85
= 0.9%
Soft plastics
0.31
= × 100
6.85
= 4.5%
Others
0.12
= × 100
6.85
= 1.8%
The percentages are summarized in the tale below

WASTE TYPE AMOUNT (%)

Organic 91.0

Hard plastic i.e. HDPE 1.8

Paper 0.9

Soft plastic i.e. bottles 4.5

others 1.8

The composition is much of organics since this a residential place and people prepare food hence the
high percentage. Also, the bottles are many in the place thus the high percentage too. The percentages
may not reflect the exact compositions because of dumping of wastes in drains as some waste is not
considered.

14 | P a g e
For the design of waste disposal;

1. Collection

• Provide waste collection bins for a group of about 20 households preferably hard plastic bins
with rollers for easy mobility.

• Individual households produce waste of about 1kilogram in a day so for a group of 20


households, it gives a total of 20 kilograms

• Provide a 240-liter capacity bins at each collection point

2. Transportation

• Utilize wheelbarrows and the movable bins to carry the waste to the disposal point from the
collection points due to the limited space.

Sine the waste is mainly organic, the organic waste should be sorted and removed for composting.

Compositing is an adequate design plan as the dumpsite had space that was unused which could be
utilized for composting.

The most appropriate composting method would be windrows as it would create employment for the
Katanga youth who are idle to keep working on the compost while being relatively cheap.

15 | P a g e
References
 The Design of Pour-flush Latrines by Duncan Mara, 1985
 A proposal for empowering slum dwellers as a viable way of addressing urbanization
challenges in Katanga slum, Kampala, Uganda by Godfrey Omulo, Musinguzi Muhsin,
Ismail Kasana and Resty Nabatereg, 2017
 A Baseline Analysis of the Katanga Slums: Informing Urban Public Policy In Kampala, Uganda by
James M. Van leeuwen, Tinotenda Sekeramayi, Christine Martell and Michael Feinberg, 2017
 A Socio-economic Analysis in ten informal settlements of Kampala. Kampala—Uganda
by Avuni Alfred, 2011, No. 3

16 | P a g e