This document provides information on water supply and sanitation in Nepal. It notes that drinking water coverage is 80% while sanitation coverage based on having a toilet is 50%. Key points include that only 200 water supply schemes have a population over 5,000, 150 projects have treatment facilities, and 80% of project sources are springs. It also outlines Nepal's national drinking water quality standards and requirements for water suppliers to submit water quality improvement programs.

1. Sudan
Raj
Panthi
(PhD)
Department
of
Water
Supply
and
Sewerage
Kathmandu,
Nepal

2. ¡ Area
147,000
Sq
Km
¡ Population
26.6
million
¡ Drinking
water
coverage
80
%
¡ Sanitation
Coverage
Ø Based
on
having
toilet
or
ODF
(Open
defecation
Free)
-­‐
50
%
Ø ODF-­‐
districts
2
out
of
75
Ø ODF
–VDCs
235
out
of
4000
¡ Total
Water
Supply
Schemes
=
37,000
¡ Only
200
projects
have
population
>5000
¡ Only
150
projects
have
treatment
facilities
¡ 80
%
project
sources
are
spring
¡ National
drinking
water
standard
(2005)
§ 2

3. Parameter
Unit
Max
Limit
/Limit
National Drinking
Turbidity
NTU 5 (10)*
Water Quality
TDS
Mg/L
1000
Standards, 2005
Iron
Mg/L
0.3 (3.0)*
Manganese
Mg/L
0.2
Arsenic
Mg/L
0.05
Chromium
Mg/L
0.05
Flu0ride
Mg/L
0.5 – 1.5
Lead
Mg/L
0.01
Ammonia
Mg/L
1.5
Nitrate
Mg/L
50
Total
Hardness
Mg/L
as
CaCO3
500
Residual
Chlorine
Mg/L
0.1 - 0.2
Total
Coliform
MPN/100
mL
0 (in 95 % tests)
E.
Coli
MPN/100
mL
0 ( )* If there is no alternate source
§ 3

4. ¡ The
water
suppliers
should
submit
a
water
quality
improvement
programs(WQIP)
to
the
concerned
ministry
and
MoPH
¡ It
is
mandatory
upon
service
providers
to
implement
those
programs,
from
second
year
of
approval
of
such
programs
by
the
concerned
ministries
¡ WQIP
è
WSP
§ 4

5. ¡ A management tool to achieve health based target
of water supply schemes
¡ An effective means of consistently ensuring the
safety of drinking water
¡ A series of works on risk assessment followed by
risk management, from catchment to consumer
¡ A variety of interventions at the level of
households, community, water supplier and
regulator, often with an excellent cost-benefit ratio
¡ A correction of sanitary negligence
§ 5

6. § 6

7. Hand book
Guideline
§ 7

8. Team
1 Formation
¡ 5-­‐7
members
with
one
team
leader
¡ Define
roles
and
responsibility
¡ Orient
the
team
for
WSP
§ 80

9. Team
Formation System
Assessment
2
¡ Understand
the
Project
Components
¡ Prepare
Social
Map
¡ Prepare
Flow
Chart
§ 11

10. § 12

11. Team
System
Formation
Assessment
Hazard Identification
and Risk Analysis
3
§ 13

12. Team
Formation System
Assessment
Hazard Identification
and Risk Analysis
Control Measures
4
§ 14

13. Hazard point or process Risk score Control measures
(1 to 4)
Source and Catchments
Ø Flood entering to the intake 4 Diversion channel
Reservoirs
Ø No fencing 3 Do fencing
Ø Damaged Manhole cover 4 Repair / Replace it
Pipe lines
Ø Leak near School 4 Repair
Tap stands and users area
Ø Damaged platform 2 Repair
§ 15

14. Team
Formation System
Assessment
Hazard Identification
and Risk Analysis
¡ Urgent
Correction
with
Priority
¡ Long
Term
Control Measures
Correction
¡ Supporting
Program
5 Support & Correction
§ 16

15. Team
Formation System
Assessment
Hazard Identification
and Risk Analysis
Control Measures
6
Urgent Correction
Monitoring Plan
§ 17

16. What to monitor? Who monitors? When to monitor
(frequency)?
1. Govinda BK ( staff) Once in two months
a) Identification of places 2. Kamal Narayan
from where flood may enter 3. Krishna Kattel
b) Identification of entry point
of pollution
Open wash out valve to flush 1.Raghupati KC ( staff) Twice in a month
the treatment units 2. Krishna B. Devkota
3. Balaram Shrestha
§ 18

17. Team
Formation System
Assessment
Hazard Identification
and Risk Analysis
Control Measures
7
Validation
Urgent Correction
Monitoring Plan
§ 19

18. Team
Formation System
Assessment
Hazard Identification
and Risk Analysis
8
Verification
Control Measures
Validation
Urgent Correction
Monitoring Plan
§ 20

19. Confirming
that
a
product
or
service
meets
the
needs
of
its
users
21

20. Validation of Treatment Units (case study)
TSS = 500 TSS = 100 TSS = 20
Tu=2000 Tu=1400 Tu=50 TSS = 0
CF=352 CF=320 CF=52 Tu=<1
CF=0
RVT
GC/PST
RF SSF FRC (Cl2 )=
Cl2 = 1mg/l
0.2 mg/l
FRC (Cl2 )= 0.1 mg/l T#200
T#300
T# 300
T# 500
TSS in mg/L
Tu in NTU
CF in CFU per 100 mL

21. Team
Formation System
Assessment
9
Hazard Identification
User’s Satisfaction
and Risk Analysis
Verification
Control Measures
Validation
Urgent Correction
Monitoring Plan
23

22. 10
Team
Formation System
Assessment
Documentation
?
Hazard Identification
User’s satisfaction
and Risk Analysis
Verification
Control Measures
Validation
Urgent Correction
Monitoring Plan
24

24. ¡ Resource
management
§ Budget
▪ Foreign
Supports
(WHO,
UN-­‐Habitat,
UNICEF
etc.)
▪ National
(DWSS,
DOLIDAR
etc.)
▪ Local
(Project’s)
§ Equipments
(Microbial
Test-­‐kit)
§ Manpower
(WSP
Training
for
200
Engineers)
¡ Advocacy
(National
Workshop,
Awareness
Program)
§ 246

25. ¡ Type of projects taken for WSP
§ Hand Pump/Shallow Tube Wells
§ Rural Water Supply Projects
§ Urban / Semi-urban Water Supply Projects
¡ Organizations started to work on WSP
§ DWSS/ WHO/ UN Habitat
§ NEWAH / Water Aid
§ ENPHO
§ Centre for Integrated Urban Development (CIUD)
§ Municipal Association of Nepal (MuAN)
§ Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project, WN &
RVWRMP § 27

26. From 2006 to 2009
¡ Shallow Tube Well – 1 Cluster
¡ Pilot projects in 12 rural setting
¡ Pilot projects in 5 urban setting
In 2010/2011
¡ 22 Projects in rural setting
¡ 20 Projects in Urban Settings
¡ 150 Projects (@ 2 # per district)
For 2011/12
§ 150 Projects (@ 2 # per district)
§ 10 Projects in Urban settings
§ WHO/AusAid Project III Phase
§ 28

27. § 29

28. § 30

29. § 31

30. Critical Points
§ 32

31. Critical Points
§ 33

32.
Control
of
Leakage
(Itahari)
34

33. BEFORE
WSP
AFTER
WSP
§ 33

34. BEFORE-­‐
WSP
AFTER-­‐
WSP
36

35. Name
of
the
District
E-­‐coli
per
100
mL
Sample
project
point
Before
After
WSP
WSP
Sanopatiyani
Chitawan
150
0
RVT
100
0
Tap
Jante
Morang
150
26
Tap
120
2
Source
Gahate
Nuwakot
90
0
RVT
Bhyagute
95
0
Tap
Motipur
Kapilbastu
65
0
Deep
Well
95
5
Tap
Deurali
Kaski
300
0
RVT
60
0
Pipeline
37

36. ¡ If
source is good, that doesn’t mean the
scheme doesn’t need WSP
¡ Different approaches to undertake the WSP
¡ WSPapproach doesn’t expect big amount of
money but can save money
¡ WSP team must have adequate experience
and expertise
¡ Lessons should learnt from case studies
§ 38