S4 Sanitation Options in Peri-urban Areas by Michael Paddon

8/6/2019 S4 Sanitation Options in Peri-urban Areas by Michael Paddon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/s4-sanitation-options-in-peri-urban-areas-by-michael-paddon 1/17

THINK.CHANGE.DO

SANITATION OPTIONS IN PERI-URBANAREAS: Can Tho City, VietnamAssociate Professor Michael Paddon

University of Technology Sydney

ADB-DMC and Partner Sanitation Dialogue

“making sanitation a sustainable business”

23-25 May 2011, ADB, Manila

1



Can Tho Sustainable Sanitation

Project

Institute for Sustainable Futures (ISF) ,Can Tho University, City Water Supplyand Sewerage Company (CTWSSC)

Approved by CT Peoples’ Committee

Detailed material and assistance from:

GTZ waste water project in Can Tho

International NGO re technologies-BORDA

DONRE monitored water quality

ISF costing and sustainability analysis methodology

Aim - develop a methodology for Asian city sustainableinfrastructure investment planning

23-25 May, Manila 2Michael Paddon, ISF, University of Technology Sydney



Can Tho City and the peri-

urban area

Can ThoCity




Current challenges for sewerage in Can Tho

Affordability for households

Funding for WSSC to manage sewerage

Rate of urbanisation is unsure Climate change impacts

Pollution in river and ground water from leaking septics

Flat land makes gravity sewer difficult

Lack of connection between developer’s design andprimary collection system

1. Can Tho – detailed orientation and wastewater challenges




Development Plans for Peri Urban South Can Tho

Based on existing plans of 16 developments,and further 21 developments, total population

will be 278 000 55 600 dwellings

Based on actual predicted water-use in each

development lot (residential and non-residential), total wastewater produced will be

57 750 m3/day

1. Can Tho -detailed orientation and wastewater challenges




Options 1-3

1. Centralised: connect newdevelopments to

wastewater treatmentplant being built

2. Decentralised: separatesystems for eachdevelopment

3. Combination of 1 and 2depending on location


2. Sanitation Options



Option 4

4. Combination of 1 and 2- for the decentralised

component, separategreywater, blackwater,and urine

(for nutrient recovery,

treatment and re useas fertilizer)


2. Sanitation Options



Calculate costs for each optionyear by year as developments

are built

Calculate infrastructure size foreach option (pipes, pumps,

treatment)

Summarise and calculate flowrates

Calculate wastewater (grey &black) for each development

Calculate unit wastewater andnutrient production

Calculate household water use

End use assumptions

3. Costing analysis results

8



Comparison of options


Cost of option in present

value million VND (2010)

Option 1

Fully

centralised

Option 2

Fully

decentralised

Option 3

Centralised

/decentralised

Option 4

Centralised

/decentralised

with resource

recovery in

decentralisedareas

Present Value Capital Cost 517,000

(27m USD)

276,000

(14m USD)

256,000

(13m USD)

330,000

(17m USD)

Present Value Operation

and Maintenance Cost

4,000 1,900 2,200 2,300

Present Value Revenuefrom Fertiliser Sales - - - 11,800

Levelised cost per

household

20

(1,000 USD)

11

(600 USD)

10

(500 USD)

13

(700 USD)

Levelised cost per m3

water

consumed

0.064

(3.4 USD)

0.030

(1.6 USD)

0.029

(1.6 USD)

0.036

(1.9 USD)




Comparison of capital costs of options


0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

N P V ( M i l l i o n V N D )

Net present value

N P V ( t r i ệ u

V N Đ )




Operation and maintenance costs, and sales

of fertiliser


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1 2 3 4

M i l l i o n V N D

Net present value - operation andmaintenance

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1 2 3 4

Net present value of sales of fertiliser -




Energy usage of options


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4

M i l l i o n k W h / y e a r




Sustainability criteria – five dimensions

4. Sustainability assessment

e g technology,complexitye g public health, equity

e g water quality, energy usee g costs, land usee g resilience, innovative

Technical and Risk (TR)Social and Health (SH)

Environmental (Env)Economic (Eco)City Future (CF)

Each with 4-5 criteria




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Technical (TR)

Social and health (SH)

Environment (Env)Economic and Financial (Eco)

City future (CF)

4. Sustainability assessment

Results of sustainability assessment


S i bili



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

PHƯƠNG ÁN 1 PHƯƠNG ÁN 2 PHƯƠNG ÁN 3 PHƯƠNG ÁN 4

4. 5. Sustainability assessment

Results of sustainability assessment

l 15

5 Wid P li I li i



Our Conclusions

Decentralised systems can provide cost-effective,sustainable wastewater solutions, particularly with

uncertain rates of urbanisation Consideration should be given to both decentralised and

centralised systems in wastewater infrastructure planning.

The most important criterion is that waste water planning is

appropriate to local situations and circumstances There need for demonstration of novel decentralised

technologies give city stakeholders confidence andexperience in decentralised wastewater technologies

5. Wider Policy Implications




Acknowledgements

The ISF team – Juliet Willetts,Cynthia Mitchell, Naomi

Carrard and Monique Retamal College of Environment and

Natural Resources at Can ThoUniversity

Can Tho Water Supply andSewerage Company

AusAID

Michael Paddon

[email protected]

Documents

S4 Sanitation Options in Peri-urban Areas by Michael Paddon