Alternative Methods for Solid Waste Management and Treatment

Transcription

United States Agency for
International Development
Ministry of
Water Resources & Irrigation
LIFE Integrated Water Resources Management
Task Order No. 802
EPIQ II: Contract No. EPP-T-802-03-00013-00
Task 5 – Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality
Management
Alternative Methods for Solid Waste Management and Treatment
and Disposal of Wastewater
Report No. 7
July 2005
International Resources Group
In association with EPIQ II Consortium
LIFE Integrated Water Resources Management
Task Order No. 802
EPIQ II: Contract No. EPP-T-802-03-00013-00
Alternative Methods for Solid Waste Management and
Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater
Report No. 7
Prepared by
Environmental Quality International (EQI)
July 2005
In association with EPIQ II Consortium
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables.............................................................................................iii
Figures ............................................................................................................................... iii
Tables................................................................................................................................. iii
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Measurements .............................................................. v
Measurement Units ............................................................................................................ vi
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................1
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 4
Background......................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of the Report.......................................................................................................... 5
Report Organization............................................................................................................ 5
2. Overview..................................................................................................................7
Waste Management Practices in Egypt............................................................................... 7
Municipal Solid Waste ............................................................................................................... 8
Agricultural Solid Waste.......................................................................................................... 11
Regulatory Framework Governing Solid Waste Management ..........................................14
Overview of Wastewater Management Practices ..............................................................15
Wastewater Generation ............................................................................................................ 15
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ........................................................................................ 16
Nile Water Quality.............................................................................................................18
Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................19
Task 5 Objectives...............................................................................................................19
Methodology ......................................................................................................................20
3. Selection of the Pilot Area .....................................................................................24
Criteria for Selection of the Pilot Area ..............................................................................24
Selection of Pilot Area .......................................................................................................25
Description of the Pilot Area .............................................................................................30
4. Stakeholder Mapping and Mobilization.................................................................32
Selection Criteria ...............................................................................................................32
Stakeholder Mapping .........................................................................................................32
Process Documentation for Stakeholder Meetings ............................................................35
Training Needs for Establishing an Autonomous Consortium ..........................................36
5. Alternatives for Improved Solid Waste Management in the Pilot Area ................37
Household Waste ...............................................................................................................37
Conditions in the Pilot Area ..................................................................................................... 37
Household Waste Generation and Composition....................................................................... 37
Assessment of Village Streets .................................................................................................. 38
Proposed Household Waste Management Alternatives............................................................ 38
Evaluation of Household Waste Management Alternatives..................................................... 40
Cost/Benefit Analysis............................................................................................................... 40
Selection of Best Alternative Solution .....................................................................................43
Recommended Scenario for Household Waste ........................................................................43
Agricultural Waste .............................................................................................................44
i
ii
Alternative Methods for Solid Waste Management and Treatment and Disposal of Wastewater
Conditions in the Pilot Area ..................................................................................................... 44
Agricultural Waste and Its Use ................................................................................................45
Agricultural Waste Generation in the Pilot Area .....................................................................46
Potential for Reuse of Agricultural Waste................................................................................ 47
Proposed Agricultural Waste Management Alternatives .........................................................48
Proposed Processing Techniques ............................................................................................. 49
Proposed Management Alternatives.........................................................................................50
Evaluation of Agricultural Waste Management Alternatives................................................... 51
Cost/Benefit Analysis............................................................................................................... 51
Field Equipment ....................................................................................................................... 52
Sorting Center .......................................................................................................................... 52
Selection of Best Solution ........................................................................................................ 54
Recommended Scenario for Agricultural Waste Management ................................................55
6. Improved Wastewater Management ......................................................................56
Conditions in the Pilot Area...............................................................................................56
Identification of Alternative Technologies ........................................................................58
Technical Constraints............................................................................................................... 61
Proposed Wastewater Management Alternatives .....................................................................62
Evaluation of Wastewater Management Alternatives ..............................................................73
Best Alternative Solution Selection Criteria ............................................................................73
Qualitative Evaluation of Alternatives .....................................................................................73
Cost/Benefit Analysis of Alternatives...................................................................................... 74
Selection of Best Alternative Solution .....................................................................................75
Recommended Alternative for Wastewater Management........................................................ 80
7. Water Quality Monitoring Plan .............................................................................81
Monitoring Point Selection Criteria...................................................................................81
Measurement of Water Quality Indicators.........................................................................81
Assessment of Results........................................................................................................82
Pollution of Concerned Waterways ...................................................................................82
8. Conclusion .............................................................................................................85
Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................................85
Wastewater Management...................................................................................................85
Overall Recommendations.................................................................................................86
Next Steps ..........................................................................................................................86
References .................................................................................................................87
Annex 1:
EQI Scope of Work for Reference to Task 5 Requirements...... Annex 1/1
Annex 2:
Previous Reports and Presentations Submitted Regarding
Field Work ................................................................................. Annex 2/1
Annex 3:
Egyptian Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.................... Annex 3/1
Annex 4:
Representatives from Stakeholder Organizations...................... Annex 4/1
Annex 5:
Preliminary Training Program ................................................... Annex 5/1
Annex 6:
Case Study: Separating Gray from Black Water ....................... Annex 6/1
Annex 7:
Major Crops, 2003 ..................................................................... Annex 7/1
Annex 8:
Official Criteria for Water Treatment and Reuse of
Treated Water............................................................................. Annex 8/1
Annex 9:
Water Monitoring Laboratory Results ....................................... Annex 9/1
Annex 10: Agricultural Solid Waste and Wastewater Treatment
Experts ..................................................................................... Annex 10/1
Annex 11: Responses to Comments on EQI’s Feasibility Report............. Annex 11/1
iii
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Accumulated Waste in a Canal........................................................................... 7
Total Household Waste in Selected Directorates for 2004................................. 9
Household Waste Dumped in a Canal .............................................................. 10
Untreated Wastewater Dumped into a Canal.................................................... 18
Map of Egypt .................................................................................................... 25
Zifta markaz in Gharbiya Governorate............................................................. 26
Zifta Integrated District Map ............................................................................ 27
GIS Maps Indicating Sinbo Canal and Zifta..................................................... 29
Composition of Household Waste in Sinbo Village......................................... 37
Waste Composition in Sinbo Versus Cairo ...................................................... 38
Domestic and Agricultural Waste in the Sinbo Canal ...................................... 44
Corn Stalks on the Banks of the Sinbo Canal................................................... 45
Schematic of the Sewage Collection Network in Sinbo Village ...................... 56
Actual and Suggested Schematic Wastewater Flow Diagram.......................... 63
Cross-section of the Perforated Sewer and the Filter ....................................... 64
Cross-section of Modified Trench .................................................................... 64
Plan View and Cross Section of the Septic Tank ............................................. 67
Cross Section of the Pumping Station .............................................................. 67
Adam Village, Noubareya DBAF WWTP ...................................................... 71
Cross-section of a DBAF WWTP Unit ............................................................ 72
Comparison Based on Initial Cost and Level of Treatment.............................. 78
Monthly Running Cost Per Household, Excluding Depreciation (L.E.) .......... 78
Monthly Running Cost Per Household Including Depreciation (L.E.) ............ 79
Comparison of Alternatives Based on Land Requirements (in kirats) ............. 80
Location of Water Sampling Stations............................................................... 83
Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Total Household Waste in Selected Irrigation Directorates (2004).................... 8
Typical Composition of Municipial Solid Waste in Egyptian Cities ................. 9
Cultivated Land Areas in Egypt (in Feddans), 2003 ........................................ 12
Cultivated Areas and Agricultural Solid Waste Production for Major Crops
in Egypt, 2003–04............................................................................................. 12
Summary of Features of Three Composting Plants .......................................... 13
Estimated Liquid Waste Volumes by Generation Source for 2004.................. 16
Industrial Wastewater Discharges of Major Public Sector Industries
in Egypt ............................................................................................................ 16
General Profile of the South Zifta IWMD, Gharbiya Governorate .................. 28
Overview of Sinbo Canal, Zifta, Gharbiya....................................................... 30
Land Use Categories in Sinbo el-Kobra, Zifta, Gharbiya................................. 31
Cost/Benefit of Municipal Solid Waste Scenarios (in L.E.)............................. 41
iv
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Crop Composition and Agricultural Solid Waste Generation in the
Sinbo Canal Pilot Area in Gharbiya, 2004–05 ................................................. 47
Cost/Benefit Analysis for Proposed Agricultural Waste Management
Scenarios........................................................................................................... 52
Estimated Water Consumption Rates ............................................................... 60
Cost Estimate for Septic Tank Alternative to Serve 60 Percent of Sinbo
Population......................................................................................................... 68
Cost Estimate for Septic Tank Alternative to Serve 100 Percent of Sinbo’s
Population......................................................................................................... 69
Cost Estimate for DBAF Alternative to Serve 60 Percent of the Population ... 72
Cost Estimate for DBAF Alternative to Serve 100 Percent of the Population . 73
Comparative Evaluation of all Alternatives ..................................................... 74
Cost/Benefit Analysis of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives ......................... 76
GIS Information of Selected Monitoring Points............................................... 83
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Measurements
BCWUAs
BOD
CAPMAS
CDA
COP
DBAF
DO
EEAA
EQI
FC
FINNIDA
GIS
GOE
GPS
IRG
IWMD
IWMP
LIFE
MoU
MWRI
NGO
O&M
P.C.
PVC
R.C.
RWSP
SS
TA
TDS
TKN
TP
TSS
USAID
Branch Canal Water Users Associations
biochemical oxygen demand
Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics
Community Development Association
Chief of Party
Dual Biological Aerated Filter
dissolved oxygen
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
Environmental Quality International
fecal coliform
The Finnish development aid agency
Geographical Information System
Government of Egypt
Geographical Positioning System
Integrated Water Management Districts
Integrated Water Management Project
Livelihood and Income from the Environment
Memorandum of Understanding
Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation
nongovernmental organization
operation and maintenance
plain concrete
polyvinyl chloride
reinforced concrete
Regional Water and Sanitation Project
suspended solids
Technical Assistance
total dissolved solids
total kjedahl nitrogen
total phosphorus
total suspended solids
United States Agency for International Development
v
vi
Measurement Units
feddan
kg
kirat
km
l
L.E.
m2
m3
ml
t
US$
unit of land measurement = 4200 m2
kilogram, unit of weight measurement
unit of land measurement = 1/24 feddan = 175 m2
kilometer, unit of length measurement
Litre, unit of volume measurement
Livre Egyptienne (Egyptian Pound), currency unit
meter square, unit of area measurement
meter cube, unit of volume measurement
milliliter, unit of volume measurement
ton, unit of weight measurement
American dollar, currency unit
Executive Summary
The magnitude of waste management problems in rural communities throughout
Egypt has long been recognized. The lack of appropriate disposal sites has affected
both land and waterways. The problem must be tackled—either at the source or by
installing appropriate and safe disposal mechanisms—in an effort to combat the
expanding volume of untreated solid and liquid waste dumped into canals and drains,
which essentially represent Egypt’s freshwater lifeline,.
International Resources Group (IRG) asked Environmental Quality International
(EQI) to address the challenges presented by the solid waste and wastewater disposal
situation on a pilot scale, for eventual replication in other communities throughout the
country. The main aim of this report is to highlight activities undertaken. These
include:
•
Determining the scope of the problem on a local scale
•
Building civic responsibility by promoting stakeholder participation in selecting
the most appropriate solutions within the pilot area
•
Formulating a monitoring strategy to track improvements as a result of improved
management systems.
A pivotal activity to ensure the success and continuity of the pilot initiative is the
establishment of a consortium of representatives of community-led local institutions
that would be responsible for steering implementation of the pilot project. Capacity
building training needs specific to the consortium have been identified, and next steps
include physical establishment of such a consortium, complete with fully trained staff.
In dealing with the problem of household waste disposal, five collection options were
examined:
1. An agricultural trailer that passes daily through the target area on a fixed time
schedule, and collects waste directly from households
2. Placing trailer boxes—to be emptied and replaced daily—in carefully selected
locations in the pilot area, to maximize access and allow for convenient disposal
of household waste
3. Collecting household waste by means of a mule-drawn cart according to a fixed
schedule.
In all three of these scenarios, the collected household waste would be transported to a
sorting center, where organic material would be composted and sold as high quality
fertilizer, while the inorganic component would be sorted into recyclable categories,
1
2
packed, and sold to a recycling contractor. Revenues from the activities of the sorting
center along with a nominal collection fee would render the household waste
management system sustainable.
4. Collecting household waste every other day by means of an agricultural tractor
and a 6m3 capacity trailer
5. A 7m3 long-bed truck would collect the waste, following a preset route.
Unlike the first three scenarios, in these two, collected waste would be transported
directly to the Zifta dumpsite before sorting or recycling.
On analysis, scenario 3 appears to be the least costly in terms of investment and
running costs, and it is in keeping with local customs. It is slower in collecting the
solid waste collection and could add to traffic congestion.
In tackling the issue of agricultural waste, which lends itself to reuse if processed
correctly, three options are proposed:
1. The farmer processes agricultural waste on his land to produce silage and compost
and could rent processing equipment from the consortium
2. The farmer and consortium collaborate to produce silage and compost on the
farmer’s land on a profit-sharing basis, with the farmer undertaking the waste
processing, and the consortium providing the equipment free and undertaking the
marketing
3. The consortium transports the agricultural waste to a sorting center for silage and
compost production.
The most attractive, from a practical point of view, is the first solution, where farmers
benefit from the processed waste. This scenario entails the least cost, and poses no
marketing risks for the farmers. Although this scenario is not the most profitable for
the consortium, the rental fees for the equipment would ensure the sustainability of
the project
In addressing wastewater management challenges, six disposal and treatment
technologies were considered:
1. Separation of grey and black wastewater
2. A combined trench/collection network system
3. Treatment of wastewater at main discharge points using conventional treatment
systems
4. Treatment of wastewater at main discharge points using stabilization ponds
5. Treatment of wastewater at discharge points using septic tanks
6. Use of a Dual Biological Aerated Filter (DBAF) package unit.
Of these, the septic tank and the DBAF solutions are feasible both practically and
financially, taking into account local conditions.
Viable alternatives exist for improving both solid waste and wastewater management
processes. Key community stakeholders must be involved in discussions of available
options to ensure that the best solutions are selected in a fully participatory manner.
3
4
1.
Introduction
Background
The management of solid and liquid waste constitutes a major problem in rural areas
in Egypt, since it relies to a large extent on rudimentary and environmentally
degrading disposal practices. More often than not, household and agricultural solid
wastes end up in drains and irrigation canals. Likewise, domestic wastewater is
discharged—untreated—into drains and irrigation canals. These disposal practices
result in blocking drains and irrigation networks and in the degradation of water
quality, contributing to a major public health hazard.
In order to combat the negative effects of current solid and liquid waste disposal
practices, the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI) is seeking to
develop practical solutions for the disposal of these wastes through the Livelihood and
Income from the Environment (LIFE) Integrated Water Resources Management
Project (IWRMP) funded by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID)/Egypt and implemented by International Resource Group (IRG).1 Within
the scope of the LIFE project, the MWRI has adopted an integrated water resources
management approach covering services and practices in the areas of irrigation,
drainage, groundwater utilization, rainfall management, and flood control. It has also
adopted policies and programs to decentralize water resources management at the
district level, by introducing Integrated Water Management Districts (IWMD). The
project has encouraged the participation of farmers by establishing Branch Canal
Water User Associations (BCWUAs), which allow active users to participate in
irrigation management.
Under the project, IRG commissioned Environmental Quality International (EQI) to
provide short-term technical assistance to support the implementation of Task 5:
“Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality Management.” According to
the Scope of Work, the EQI consultant team was to work with the LIFE–IWRMP
technical assistance (TA) Team, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), IWMDs, and relevant stakeholders to prepare plans, develop
alternatives and implement a water quality management pilot project. Annex 1
contains the Scope of Work for this assignment.
1
Contract No. EPP-I-802-03-00013-00, Task Order 802.
5
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to summarize the activities carried out for this
assignment from 1 September 2004–31 March 2005. Previous reports submitted
during this period are included in Annex 2. This report highlights the following
activities:
•
An analysis of existing solid and liquid waste disposal practices in Egypt
•
Selection of a pilot area
•
Stakeholder mapping and mobilization activity
•
Survey of trends in solid and liquid waste disposal/reuse behavior in the pilot area
•
Assessment of alternative disposal/reuse methods
•
Economic and financial feasibility analysis of different options, including
institutional constraints and requirements, operation and maintenance (O&M)
requirements, and recommendations for implementation
•
Water quality monitoring plan for the pilot area.
The bulk of the information from the above activities was submitted as technical input
to the proposal for supplemental funding from the Japanese Embassy, and can be used
for other similar proposals presented to alternative funding sources.
Report Organization
This report is divided into eight chapters and ten annexes, appended for document
clarification and elaboration purposes. Chapter 1 provides a broad introduction,
followed by:
•
Chapter 2 presents an overview of present trends in solid and liquid waste
disposal/reuse practices in Egypt based on a review of available secondary data. It
also outlines the objectives of Task 5 and the methodology adopted to achieve
these objectives.
•
Chapter 3 discusses the process for selecting the pilot area and provides a general
description of it.
•
Chapter 4 identifies major stakeholders in the pilot area in the field of waste
management. It then summarizes the general approach used to mobilize
stakeholder support in selecting and eventually implementing the required
interventions.
•
Chapter 5 gives an analysis of the current domestic and agricultural solid waste
management systems in the pilot area based on field data collected by the EQI
team in the area, and examines the technical and financial feasibility of alternative
management schemes. Recommendations are made regarding the most
appropriate interventions to be implemented in the pilot area and the associated
O&M requirements.
6
•
Chapter 6 provides an analysis of the wastewater situation in the pilot area, and
explores alternative options and interventions. This includes a financial and
technical analysis of alternatives, with recommendations regarding the most
appropriate intervention for the pilot area.
•
Chapter 7 presents a water-quality monitoring plan for the pilot area as a means of
gauging the effectiveness of the pilot intervention.
•
Chapter 8 summarizes the conclusions drawn from the analyses of the solid and
liquid waste management alternatives. It also provides recommendations for
action.
The annexes include:
•
Annex 1: EQI’s Scope of Work, for reference to the task requirements for Task 5
•
Annex 2: Previous reports and presentations submitted thus far concerning field
work
•
Annex 3: List of municipal wastewater treatment plants in Egypt
•
Annex 4: List of names and positions of representatives of key stakeholder
organizations
•
Annex 5: Preliminary training program submitted for approval
•
Annex 6: Case study outlining grey versus black water separation to demonstrate
one of the proposed alternatives
•
Annex 7: National yields of major crops for the year 2003
•
Annex 8: Official governmental criteria for categorizing different levels of water
treatment, and the allowable modes of reuse
•
Annex 9: First batch of water monitoring laboratory results, as a reference for the
types of indicators used and the baseline of water quality in the pilot area
•
Annex 10: CVs and Letters of Assignment from experts in the field of agricultural
solid waste and wastewater.
2.
7
Overview
Waste Management Practices in Egypt
The massive amounts of solid waste generated in rural Egypt make it imperative to
ensure proper collection, transportation, and disposal. Yet government and privately
operated solid waste collection and disposal services are virtually non-existent in most
of rural Egypt. Less than half of the solid waste generated is reused or recycled. The
greatest part is disposed of locally by open burning or simply dumping in empty lots,
in village streets, or more conveniently, on the banks of nearby irrigation canals or
drains. Eventually, large quantities of this waste end up in the canal or the drain itself.
The accumulation of solid waste in the canals and drains not only interferes with the
functioning of these networks, but also results in considerable water quality
degradation. Figure 1 illustrates waste accumulation in canals.
Figure 1
Accumulated Waste in a Canal
Similarly, systems for sanitary drainage and the treatment of domestic wastewater are
limited. While the Egyptian Code provides for three stages for the treatment of
wastewater within a conventional treatment plant—preliminary and secondary
treatment stages and a disinfection stage—the vast majority of Egyptian villages
dispose of domestic wastewater by simply discharging the untreated sewage into
irrigation canals or agricultural drains. The resulting level of pollution has reached
8
massive proportions and poses a serious threat to the natural environment and to the
health of the local populations.
Municipal Solid Waste
Solid Waste Generation—A study on municipal solid waste generation and
management in Egypt carried out in 1999 estimated the total solid waste generation
rate at about 10 million tons per year. 2 This estimate was based upon a per capita
generation rate of 0.3 kg/day in rural areas and 0.8 kg/day in urban areas. The study
was based on the assumption that 60 percent of Egypt’s population live in rural areas,
while 40 percent live in urban areas. Based on the same assumptions, but taking into
account the present-day population of about 70 million, the total annual solid waste
generation rate in Egypt becomes 12.8 million tons.
A recently completed study presents household solid waste generation rates in rural
and urban areas in Lower and Upper Egypt, revealing the magnitude of solid waste
generated by rural communities. 3 Waste generation is expected to continue to increase
in the future, further escalating the present, already major, problem. Table 1 and
figure 2 show generated household waste volumes in selected directorates.
Table 1
Total Household Waste in Selected Irrigation Directorates (2004)
Household Waste (tons/year)
General Directorate
Urban
West Sharkia
New Zifta
Qena
Aswan
Rural
Total Household Trash
(tons/day)
Total
188,057
86,329
274,387
751
51,186
100,737
151,921
417
161,823
174,258
336,083
922
47,685
71,226
118,913
326
Municipal Solid Waste Composition—Municipal waste composition varies from
one area to another according to income level, population density, and predominant
activities (commercial, residential, or industrial). Changes in solid waste composition
occur seasonally as a result of seasonal changes in food composition. Changes in
lifestyle and the increasing dependence on processed food and its associated plastic
packaging continuously alter the composition of solid waste in Egypt.
2
SEAM Project, “Solid Waste Management Strategy, Governorate of Dakahleya,” MSEA, EEAA Technical Cooperation Office
for the Environment, Entec UK Ltd, UK Department of International Development, March 1999.
Cedare, “Policy and Institutional Assessment of Solid Waste Management in Five Countries: Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria,
Tunisia.” 2000.
3
Dorrah, Hassan and Helmy El Zonfoly. Management of Solid and Liquid Wastes,” September 2004.
Figure 2
9
Total Household Waste in Selected Directorates for 2004
200,000
180,000
Household Waste (ton / year)
160,000
140,000
120,000
Urban
Rural
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
West Sharkia
New Zefta
Quena
Aswan
Directorate
Table 2 shows the typical composition of municipal solid waste in Egyptian cities.
Table 2
Typical Composition of Municipial Solid Waste in Egyptian Cities 4
Type of Waste
Percentage of Generation
Organic
60
Paper
10
Plastic
12
Glass
3
Metals
2
Textile
2
Inert
11
Municipal Solid Waste Collection, Transportation, and Disposal—Municipal
solid waste collection and transportation are the responsibility of the local
municipalities. In Cairo and some of the larger cities, however, the municipalities
subcontract household waste collection and transportation to local garbage collectors
(the zabaleen). In the last few years, a few of the large cities have contracted with
private sector companies, with international partners to undertake solid waste
4
Ministry of State for Environment. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (Directorate General for Wastes), 2000.The
National Strategy for Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management – A framework for Action
10
collection. In the case of street cleaning, the local municipalities either hire private
companies, or use their own crews and equipment to do this.
The percentage of generated solid waste that is collected and properly disposed of
varies considerably from one area to another. In rural Egypt, household solid waste
collection and disposal services are virtually non-existent. Traditionally, a
considerable portion of the generated solid waste is re-used within a household. The
organic fraction of the waste is used to feed household livestock, while the inorganic
part of the waste, such as glass, plastics, metals, and other items, are often reused for
different purposes. The portion of household solid waste that is eventually discarded
represents only a small fraction of the total waste generated. This non-reusable part of
the waste is usually dumped in any empty lot, in the village streets, or along irrigation
and drainage canals, since most local municipalities in rural areas lack the necessary
resources to implement a successful management program. Figure 3 shows household
waste dumped in a canal.
Figure 3
Household Waste Dumped in a Canal
Tractors and trailers are used by municipalities in some (but not all) villages to collect
and transport solid waste, usually to an open dumpsite where the waste is burned to
reduce its volume to a minimum. This burning contributes to high levels of air
pollution. In most cases, however, transportation to an assigned dumpsite does not
take place, and the collected trash is dumped in any empty lot or on the banks of
canals and drains.
11
In urban areas, collection rates range from 30–77 percent. 5 In the city of Cairo, an
average of 68 percent of the generated municipal waste is collected. This collection
efficiency varies from 0 percent in low-income areas, to 90 percent in high-income
neighborhoods. 6
In larger cities, the collected waste is taken to an open dumpsite, where recyclable
materials are separated. The level of separation varies from one dumpsite to another,
depending on the number of scavengers working in the separation process. The waste
that remains is usually left in the dumpsite. This conventional method of final waste
disposal is sometimes preceded by open burning, as a means of reducing the volume
of waste that is dumped.
Landfilling and incineration have recently been introduced in Egypt as more
environmentally sound solid waste treatment techniques. 7 The Government of Egypt
also adopted a national plan for establishing composting plants throughout the
country, whereby produced compost would be used as an organic fertilizer.
The separation of municipal solid waste at its generation source would greatly
improve the management of solid waste. However, the separation-at-source principle
is not yet well received by waste generators.
Agricultural Solid Waste
More than 50 percent of the 70 million Egyptians depend on agriculture as their main
economic activity. Egypt generates massive amounts of agricultural solid waste every
year. 8 The sound disposal of agricultural solid waste is one of the most pressing
environmental problems currently facing the country.
Agricultural Solid Waste Generation—Approximately 8.2 million feddans of land
are cultivated in Egypt, yielding crops two or three times a year. The effective total
cultivated area is around 14.5 million feddans annually. 9 Table 3 shows land area
allocated to different types of cultivation for the year 2003.
Table 4 shows the amount of agricultural solid waste generated by the five largest
crops in Egypt. These crops alone generate more than 17 million tons of agricultural
solid waste per year. 10 Sugar cane and wheat produce the most waste.
5
Dorrah, Hassan and Helmy El Zonfoly, “Management of Solid and Liquid Wastes,” September 2004.
6
SEAM report, “Egypt’s National Environmental Action Plan,” 1992.
7
Ibid.
8
Samir Ahmed Shimy and Bahgat El Sayed Aly, “Regional Seminar for Making Use of Agricultural Waste.” League of Arab
States, Arab Organization for Agricultural Development. Khartoum 1997 (in Arabic).
9
Ministry of Agriculture, “Agricultural Statistics Bulletin, 2003–2004.
10
Bahgat, E. A., “Demand and Supply of Organic Fertilizers.” A report prepared for the Institute of Soils, Water, and
Environmental Research, Agricultural Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture. 2004.
12
Table 3
Cultivated Land Areas in Egypt (in Feddans), 2003 11
Area (Feddans)
Cultivation Types
Old Land
Reclaimed Land
Total
Winter crops
5,523,111
1,048,309
6,571,420
Summer crops
5,262,722
810,755
6,073,477
Nili Crops
570,683
61,051
631,734
Orchards
615,048
503,863
1,118,911
46,638
31,436
78,074
12,018,202
2,455,414
14,473,616
Palm groves
Total Cultivated Area
Table 4
Cultivated Areas and Agricultural Solid Waste Production for Major Crops
in Egypt, 2003–04
Crop
Cultivated Area
(Feddans)
Solid Waste Generation
(Tons/Feddan)
Total
Rice
1,507,634
2.1
3,015,000
Maize
1,657,799
1.9
3,150,000
Wheat
2,506,178
2.56
6,415,000
Cotton
535,090
1.6
856,144
Sugar Cane
327,215
11.9
3,726,978
Total
6,206,701
—
17,163,122
Agricultural Solid Waste Composition—In Egypt, a large variety of agricultural
solid wastes are generated every year. These include post harvest waste, and chicken
and cattle manure. An average of 147 million m3 of cattle manure and 1.1 million m3
of chicken manure is produced annually. 12
Agricultural Solid Waste Disposal—Available statistics indicate that only around
40 percent of generated agricultural solid waste (about 6.9 million tons/year) is
currently utilized, while the remaining 60 percent is discarded as waste. The
traditional practice adopted by farmers throughout the past was to store agricultural
waste on the roofs of their houses for use as fuel for their home ovens. However, the
increasing dependence on butane gas stoves has resulted in a decreased reliance on
agricultural waste as a source of fuel. In addition, current Ministry of Agriculture
regulations ban the storage of agricultural solid waste, as a measure for combating
crop diseases and pests, as well as preventing major fire hazards. As a result, and due
to the lack of other suitable disposal methods, the unused part of the generated
11
12
Ministry of Agriculture, “Agricultural Statistics Bulletin,” 2003–04.
13
agricultural solid waste—an estimated 10.3 million tons annually—is disposed of by
illegal burning in the fields, or random dumping. Very little of this waste is taken to
official dumpsites, since farmers generally prefer to avoid paying the associated
dumping fees and transportation costs. Dumping on the banks of canals and drains
appears to be the most frequent means of disposal. This waste is usually removed
during the regular maintenance work performed by crews from the MWRI.
Dealing effectively with the massive quantities of agricultural solid waste generated
yearly requires a concerted effort, utilizing a multitude of approaches and disposal
methods. Rather than be viewed as a problem, agricultural waste should be recognized
as a resource that might be utilized to generate income and help conserve other, nonrenewable resources. Agricultural solid waste could be made into natural fertilizer that
could be used with virtually no negative impact on the environment. It could also be
used to produce a variety of farm animal feed and to generate biogas, an
environmentally friendly energy source. Although these waste disposal methods
cannot entirely solve the agricultural solid waste disposal problem, they will certainly
contribute to reducing the magnitude of the problem.
The production of compost as an organic fertilizer is one of the most appropriate
disposal alternatives for agricultural waste. Composting has been applied in a number
of locations, using different materials. Prices vary depending on the constituents used.
Aerobic fermentation is generally used, since it is quicker and safer than anaerobic
fermentation. Three examples of operational composting facilities are shown in
table 5.
Table 5
Summary of Features of Three Composting Plants
Facility
Location
Material
Fermentation
Process
Price/ton (L.E.)
Abu Shadi
Composting
Plant
Qaha,
Qalioubiya
Rice straw and
cattle manure
Aerobic
250
El Khalil
Composting
Plant
El Khatatba,
Qalioubiya
Rice straw with
cattle and
chicken manure
Aerobic
250-300
CEOSS Pilot
Project
El Gazaer,
Minya
Banana leaves
Aerobic
150
There is large demand for compost made from agricultural solid waste and the
demand is growing. It has been estimated that the present demand for compost is
around 53 million tons annually for the old Nile Valley land and 1.5 million tons a
year for reclaimed land. The demand for compost for reclaimed desert land is
expected to reach at least 30 million tons by 2017. With the present national
production capacity of compost being only about 20.7 million tons per year, there is
clearly a major shortage in the supply of compost. The present shortage in organic
14
fertilizer production (based on farm animal manure) is estimated at 36.3 percent of the
present demand. This shortage can be remedied with about 20.7 million tons a year of
compost, which is much more effective and safer to use. These statistics clearly
demonstrate the great economic potential for compost production in Egypt. 13
Regulatory Framework Governing Solid Waste Management
The following articles of Law No. 4/Year 1994 and its executive regulations are
among those that directly relate to the issue of solid waste management in Egypt.
Article 29 of Law 4/1994: “It is forbidden to displace hazardous substances and waste
without a license from the competent administrative authority.”
Article 30 of Law 4/1994: “Management of hazardous waste shall be subject to the
rules and procedures laid down in the executive regulations of this Law.”
Article 31 of Law 4/1994: “It is forbidden to construct any establishment for the
treatment of hazardous waste without a license issued by the competent administrative
authority following consultation with the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
(EEAA). Disposal of hazardous waste shall be in accordance with the conditions and
criteria set forth in the executive regulations of this Law.”
Article 33 of Law 4/1994: “Those engaged in the production or circulation of
hazardous materials, either in gas, liquid or solid form, are held to take all precautions
to ensure that no environmental damage shall occur. The owner of an establishment
whose activities produce hazardous waste pursuant to the provisions of this Law shall
be held to keep a register of such waste indicating the method of disposing thereof,
and the agencies contracted with to receive the hazardous waste.”
Article 37 of Law 4/1994: “It is prohibited to throw, treat or burn garbage and solid
waste except in special sites designated for such purpose which are far from
residential, industrial, or agricultural areas, as well as from waterways.”
Article 39 of the Executive Regulations of Law 4/1994: “The solid waste collection
contractors shall be committed to the cleanliness of the waste containers and trucks
whose regular cleanliness must be a precondition for ensuring safety and strength of
the means of waste transport. The waste containers shall be tightly covered to avoid
emission of unpleasant odours, to avoid influx of flies and other insects, or to become
a spot for straying animals. Wastes shall be collected from these containers at proper
intervals of time according to the dominant conditions in each area, provided that the
quantity of wastes must not exceed the capacity of these containers at any time.”
13
15
Overview of Wastewater Management Practices
The lack of proper sanitation in rural areas goes back to the time when many villages
were provided with neither potable water nor sanitation systems. To access potable
water, shallow wells were dug near the household and groundwater was then pumped
to the surface. In the absence of a sanitation system, villagers connected their toilets to
excavated trenches (septic tanks) as a means of wastewater disposal. When these
trenches, which are still in use today, become full, special pumping trucks empty
them. The contents are then disposed of randomly and inappropriately—in waterways,
dumpsites, or elsewhere. Since the wastewater trenches have not been constructed
with any sort of lining, pumped well water may be contaminated with wastewater
seeping into the ground from the trenches, posing serious health threats to the local
community. In many villages, rising groundwater levels due to improperly designed
septic tanks are clogging the subsurface soil.
In the last few decades, the Government of Egypt has invested substantially in the
water sector, through major irrigation projects, improvements in the supply of
drinking water, and sanitation infrastructure development. Villages have been
provided with potable water, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in
consumption. A further consequence of these governmental initiatives is that wellwater pumping practices have either been completely abandoned, or maintained for
less critical water usage.
Unfortunately, efforts by the government to supply villages with sanitation systems
have not kept pace with the supply of potable water, and in the majority of cases have
not materialized at all. Ninety percent of the urban population is connected to the
potable water supply network, but only 50 percent has access to sanitation systems.
Exponential demographic growth has led to additional water consumption and
increased wastewater production, placing a strain on the natural environment.
Wastewater Generation
Wastewater generated at the country level amounts to 10 million m3/day. 14 This
amount is derived on the basis of 80 percent of consumed potable water. Table 6
shows the estimated generated volume of liquid waste by generation source for the
year 2004 for selected irrigation districts.
Table 7 gives a profile for industrial wastewater discharged from major public
industries.
14
“Country Profile on Environment,” Egypt, Planning and Evaluation Department, Japan International Cooperation Agency.
2002.
16
Estimated Liquid Waste Volumes by Generation Source for 2004 15
Table 6
Liquid Wastes (m3/year)
Directorate
Total
(m3/year)
Total
(m3/day)
3,844,086
92,435,417
253,248
3,123,057
2,969,298
31,206,180
85,496
91,513,530
1,132,990
6,256,560
98,903,080
270,967
17,230,920
1,081,246
2,358,864
20,671,030
56,633
Household
Sanitary
Industry
West Sharkia
80,743,110
7,848,221
New Zifta
25,113,825
Qena
Aswan
Table 7
Agriculture
Industrial Wastewater Discharges of Major Public Sector Industries in
Egypt 16
Number of Facilities
Wastewater Discharge
(Millions of m3/year)
Chemicals
35
42
Fertilizers
6
46
Metals
15
93
Oil and soap
35
59
Pulp and Paper
11
41
Sugar
13
136
Textiles
72
81
Others
134
42
Total
321
540
Industry Sector
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Wastewater is either treated in treatment plants, or disposed of in latrines, septic
tanks, or waterways. Conventional wastewater treatment is made up of three phases—
primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. 17
Primary Treatment—The aim of the primary stage—which is mechanical—is to
reduce the velocity and release the pressure of the flow where flow transits from a
closed section (sewer) to an open flow section (chambers). In this primary treatment
stage, wastewater flows through screens where floating and large-size suspended
solids are retained. The flow then passes from the screening chamber to the gritting
15 Dorrah, Hassan and Helmy Zonfely, Management of Solid and Liquid Wastes for Integrated Water Management Districts and General
“
Directorates. 2004.
”
16 http://www.ahkmena.com/Emvironment/market_doc.asp
17 Reference: Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, National Center for Housing and Building Research, Egyptian Code for
Design and Implementation of Potable and Waste Water Treatment Plants and Pumping Stations. 2004.
17
chamber, where sand and other non-organic materials of diameters exceeding 2 mm
are allowed to settle. The next step is the transmission of the flow to the primary
sedimentation tanks, where 30–40 percent of the organic suspended materials and
50-70 percent of suspended non-organic materials settle in the bottom of the tank.
Secondary Treatment—Secondary treatment provides biological treatment, whereby
suspended and dissolved organic matters that have not settled in the primary
sedimentation tanks are transformed to settleable suspended matters. This process
results from the activation of aerobic bacteria through aeration and by adding an
adequate amount of the sludge that accumulated in the final sedimentation tank. Three
types of biological treatment are commonly used: contact stabilization, activated
sludge, and oxidation ponds. Water treated by activated sludge and aerated filters are
allowed to further settle in a final sedimentation tank, where flocks of suspended
solids formed during the secondary treatment precipitate in the bottom of the tank
forming a layer of sludge.
Tertiary Treatment—In some cases, further treatment of water is needed, where
nutrients such as nitrates, ammonias, and phosphates are removed by chemical
processes.
Cairo has the best sewage treatment coverage in the country, with about 77 percent of
Cairenes connected to sewage services. Alexandria comes next, with 40 percent of the
population having access to sewage treatment. Annex 3 lists municipal wastewater
treatment plants in different governorates in Egypt, and the capacity of each plant.
In urban areas, the level of wastewater treatment is poor, while in rural areas the
overflow from blocked sewers and septic tanks has become a common sight.
In some villages, the government or the local community through self-financed
projects, have constructed gravity sewer systems in response to the problem of
improperly designed septic tanks. This solution has the advantage of circumventing
septic tanks, which results in reducing the groundwater level. However, in many
cases, no wastewater treatment plants are installed, and the collected/transmitted
sewage is dumped as raw sewage into the nearest agricultural drain, irrigation canal,
or even the River Nile. The current situation is one of a strained ecosystem unable to
cope with an increasing load of wastewater that is compounded by increased water
consumption as a result of demographic growth. Figure 4 shows the discharge of
untreated wastewater into a canal.
Some industries treat or recycle generated industrial wastewater in compliance with
environmental laws and regulations. Others, however, continue to heavily pollute
waterways and water resources. Toxic industrial wastes accumulating in river
sediments near factories have been observed.
18
Figure 4
Untreated Wastewater Dumped into a Canal
Nile Water Quality
A proportion of the water channelled into drains reaches the River Nile and ultimately
the Mediterranean Sea. This water is often heavily contaminated with chemical
fertilizers, wastewater, and industrial liquid waste. According to the World Bank
report, “Arab Republic of Egypt, Country Environmental Analysis,” the quality of
River Nile water flowing northerly from Upper Egypt is generally good until the
water reaches Cairo. 18 The water quality sharply deteriorates in the Delta region in
both the Rosetta and Damietta branches in the stretch between Cairo and the end of
the Nile. The decline of water quality is attributed to the dumping of municipal and
industrial wastewater in the river and its tributaries. The Rosetta and Damietta
branches receive about 6,000 million m3 of drainage water per year; 1,700 million m3
of municipal wastewater; and 312 million m3 of industrial wastewater. As a result,
765 million m3 of sewage and about 545 million m3 of industrial wastewater reach the
Mediterranean Sea annually. 19
The level of degradation of Nile water quality can be demonstrated by the following
findings, which are mainly linked to the disposal of municipal wastewater in
waterways: 20
•
Fecal coliform (FC) bacteria counts are 3–5 times higher than the allowable
national limits.
18
Report No. 31993–EG, Arab Republic of Egypt, “Country Environmental Analysis,” (1992.2002), Water, Environment,
Social, and Rural Development Department, The Middle East and North Africa Region, Document of the World Bank, April 1,
2005.
19
20
http://www.ahkmena.com/Emvironment/market_doc.asp
Report No. 31993–EG, Arab Republic of Egypt, “Country Environmental Analysis,” (1992.2002), Water, Environment,
Social, and Rural Development Department, The Middle East and North Africa Region, Document of the World Bank, April 1,
2005.
19
•
Dissolved oxygen (DO) ranges between 2–5 mg/l in some locations (lowest
permissible limit being 5 mg/l). The lack of dissolved oxygen hinders aquatic life,
most importantly fisheries.
•
Total dissolved solids (TDS), an indicator of salt concentration, usually surpasses
the allowable 1,000mg/l limit, particularly as a consequence of the frequent reuse
of drainage water.
The lack of appropriate sanitation facilities, combined with a lack of healthy nutrition
and proper domestic hygiene practices, especially in rural areas, leads to an estimated
20 percent annual rate for child mortality for children under 5 years of age. This rate
could be higher than the average for other countries with the same level of income per
capita. 21
Regulatory Framework
Any interventions to improve sanitation must comply with the Egyptian Law on the
Environment, Law No. 4/Y1994, and its executive regulations. In addition, a number
of other laws govern different aspects of the sanitation process. For example, the
discharge of wastewater into the Nile and its waterways is governed by Law No. 48/
1982, pertaining to the protection of the River Nile and its waterways; while the levels
of constituent chemicals (such as Biochemical Oxygen Demand [BOD] and
Suspended Solids [SS]) in wastewater discharged to a wastewater collection network
are governed by Law 93/1962.
Task 5 Objectives
The objectives of Task 5 are:
•
Improving the management of locally generated liquid and solid waste
•
Encouraging greater civic responsibility in maintaining the water conveyance
structure
•
Encouraging greater civic responsibility in improving the quality of local water
resources.
The immediate objective of Task 5 is to address the challenges presented by the solid
waste and wastewater disposal situation on a pilot scale, for eventual replication in
other communities throughout the country, using a participatory process that would
ensure stakeholder commitment and support for the activities implemented under this
task. To this end, assistance is to be provided to the MWRI in:
21 Report No. 31993–EG, Arab Republic of Egypt, “Country Environmental Analysis,” (1992.2002), Water, Environment,
Social and Rural Development Department, The Middle East and North Africa Region, Document of the World Bank. April 1,
2005.
20
•
Designing and implementing a pilot solid waste management system that provides
for the collection, transportation, and disposal of both household and agricultural
wastes and that lends itself to replication in other areas or directorates.
•
Designing and implementing a pilot wastewater management system that provides
for wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and final disposal, and that
lends itself to replication in other areas or directorates.
Methodology
In order to fulfill the above-stated objectives, the following sub-tasks were
undertaken:
•
Review of Available Documentation: This review was carried out in order to get
an overview of the general situation in the area covered by the first phase of the
project. The EQI team collected, compiled, and reviewed available data on
existing solid waste management and wastewater management and reuse practices
in Egypt and in the area. This included, among others, a review of the numerous
documents provided by IRG, including the report “Management of Solid and
Liquid Wastes for Integrated Water Management Districts and General
Directorates,” produced in September 2004 by Dr. Hassan Dorrah and Dr. Helmy
El Zonfoly. 22,23 The report covered the pilot study area that was subsequently
selected.
•
Selection of the Pilot Area: Selection of the pilot area necessarily implied a topdown approach, drawing on the combined expertise of the EQI TA team members,
and working in close collaboration with the IRG/MWRI team. This collaborative
effort was necessary in order to prudently select the most suitable areas for
implementation.
•
Stakeholder Mapping and Mobilization: In order to ensure the active
participation of stakeholders at all stages of the planning and implementation of
Task 5 activities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), local government
authorities, and BCWUAs in the selected pilot area were mapped in consultation
with the MWRI. To ensure the sustainability of the initiative, linkages between
local institutions representative of the different segments of the local community
were deemed necessary. Accordingly, the establishment of a local consortium
made up of key stakeholders, specifically community-led institutions (such as the
local BCWUA and Community Development Association [CDA]), was proposed
to ensure a unified decision-making front that would select the most appropriate
solid and liquid waste disposal/reuse solutions to service the greatest number of
people. A further benefit of establishing such a consortium was that it
complemented the project’s previous efforts to decentralize water resource
22
23
Refer to consulted references; references numbered 17–25.
Dorrah, Hassen Taher and Helmy El Zonfely. “Management of Solid Wastes for Integrated Water Management Districts and
General Directorates.” 2004.
21
management with a view to giving more decision-making powers to smaller-scale
institutions, such as BCWUAs. The consortium creates a link between these
institutions, enabling the alignment and prioritization of needs as expressed by a
representative cross-section of key stakeholders, in addition to ensuring the free
flow of communication among them to avoid obstacles in implementation arising
from differences among community members. A training needs assessment was
conducted to determine the training needed to ensure a consortium that was fully
capable of autonomously implementing pilot activities.
•
Identification and Recommendation of Appropriate Waste Management
Alternatives: This entailed the following activities:
− Survey of Pilot Area: A survey was conducted to complement available data
on household waste generation and composition in the pilot area, providing the
TA team with a more focused understanding of the particularities of the waste
situation in the area as a basis for identifying appropriate collection options.24
This entailed:
Selecting samples of household waste in a manner representative of the
different socioeconomic profiles in the village
Sorting and weighing total collected samples, as well as sorting and
weighing samples itemized by category
Assessing local streets in terms of width and length as well as level of
maintenance, to determine the configuration of eventual collection routes
in the pilot area
− Field Visits: Visits were conducted to different sites within the pilot area to
determine the types of agricultural wastes produced, and to assess the gravity
of the waste management problem, particularly in relation to the impact on
canal waterways and water quality. Reconnaissance site visits were also
conducted to assess wastewater conditions in the pilot area. The latter focused
primarily on characterizing the amount of wastewater generated in the pilot
area by quantifying the population and consumption figures, and assessing the
level of pollution in receiving drains/canals through the collection and
chemical analysis of water samples.
− Meetings with Local Community Leaders: Meetings with local community
leaders were held to discuss the needs of the community, their priorities, and
their solid and liquid waste management problems.
− Identification and Analysis of Options: Different options for dealing with both
household and agricultural wastes were identified and analyzed, and the most
appropriate options in terms of feasibility of implementation and acceptability
to the community were identified. Alternative wastewater disposal methods
were also analyzed to address the persistent dumping of wastewater in the
24 “Management of Solid and Liquid Wastes for Integrated Water Management Districts and General Directorates,” September 2004.
22
irrigation and drainage canals. These methods capitalize and build on existing
systems whenever applicable. Special attention was given to capital
investment and O&M cost requirements, simplicity of technology, cost
effectiveness, training needs, environmental impact, and capacity for
replication at the national scale.
− Feasibility Study: A feasibility study of the most appropriate solutions for the
management of municipal and agricultural waste, including detailed
investment and running costs, as well as potential for revenue generation was
conducted, and based on those studies, recommendations were made regarding
the most appropriate solutions. In addition, based on an initial screening of
alternative methods available for the treatment and disposal/use of wastewater,
a number of methods were selected for detailed evaluation. The suitability of
the different options to local conditions was evaluated from the technical,
economic, and local capacity perspectives, and on the system’s ability to
ensure wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and final disposal.
These alternatives were evaluated qualitatively to reach a subset of alternatives
that were deemed most appropriate for the conditions at hand. Each of the
options considered was then evaluated using a multi-criteria analytic
framework to determine the best alternative.
− Stakeholder Consultation: In order to guarantee buy-in of selected options by
the key stakeholders, namely the community residing in the pilot area, a
bottom-up approach was adopted, giving the community center stage in
selecting the most appropriate alternative technologies to remedy their solid
waste and wastewater problems. With the participation of the local
community, affordable and effective solutions were identified and analyzed;
and the appropriateness of the technology as well as the physical requirements
of the systems assessed. A major factor in deciding among proposed solutions
would be the level of community acceptance of proposed concepts.
•
Water Quality Monitoring Plan: Pre- and post-intervention monitoring of water
quality is necessary in order to measure achievements against objectives and to
provide information on the potential for replication of the pilot projects. The
water-quality monitoring plan consisted of two aspects: visual monitoring and
analytical monitoring. Visual monitoring entailed the photographic documentation
of the health status of the selected canal and drain, where signs of anomaly were
captured on camera. Such anomalies included, but were not limited to signs of
water eutrophication in the form of odd colours and turbidity (especially in
stagnant waters), accumulated waste, and truck dumping of wastewater into
waterways. Visual/photographic monitoring and documentation points were
identified along both the canal and the drain, and their exact locations were
recorded using the Geographical Positioning System (GPS), in accordance with
the same positions used for chemical water sampling. Analytical monitoring
consisted of performing analyses of samples taken from predetermined monitoring
locations. The determination of the geographic information of these points was
23
performed by means of GPS. Sampling and water analysis was conducted by the
Central Laboratory for Environmental Quality Monitoring, under the umbrella of
the MWRI.
24
3.
Selection of the Pilot Area
One of the main strengths of the project is that it allows for the selection of a pilot
area in which to implement technical interventions. This flexibility in the choice of
pilot area allowed the project team to maximize the benefits of collaboration, whereby
the IRG/MWRI team contributed to the selection process with a wealth of information
gleaned from the previous phases of the project, and the EQI TA team provided indepth environmental expertise. This collaborative effort allowed for a rapid
assessment of the most suitable pilot sites, including the identification of the most
active community institutions that would be central to the sustainability of the
initiative. In turn, rapid selection of the pilot sites allowed more time to be dedicated
to the collection of baseline field data, enabling the evaluation of existing conditions,
plausible alternatives, and the identification of optimal interventions.
Selection of the most appropriate pilot area was based on several criteria, as discussed
below. The pilot project’s location, boundaries, and level of intervention were
determined in consultation with Eng. Fikry Aly El Tawab, District Director, South
Zifta District, MWRI.
Criteria for Selection of the Pilot Area
The following criteria were used in selecting the pilot area:
•
Size: The pilot area should be a well-defined area with a manageable size, taking
into account the resources available for the project. The definition of the area
should be based upon a selected branch canal with its associated drain(s), and the
farming community it serves.
•
Representability: The pilot area should provide a good representation of the
conditions prevailing in Egyptian villages. Villages that exhibit special problems
that require tailored, or uncommon, approaches will be given a lower rank, since it
may be difficult to duplicate the results or make full use of the lessons learned
from their unique conditions.
•
Existing Conditions: Because of the limited financial resources available for pilot
interventions, areas that have taken certain initiatives towards resolving their solid
and liquid waste problems should be given priority. The pilot interventions can
then be designed to build upon these community initiatives.
•
Public Participation: The pilot area should have an active BCWUA that
represents the interests of water users in the community. This is important since
one of the objectives is to empower the local community to participate in the
decision-making process and take charge of the success of its own project.
Selection of Pilot Area
Of the two operating Integrated Water Management Districts in Lower Egypt, the
South Zifta IWMD in New Zifta, Gharbiya Governorate, was selected for the pilot
study. Figures 5, 6, and 7 show maps of Egypt, markaz Zifta, and Zifta Integrated
Districts, respectively.
Figure 5
25
Map of Egypt 25
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/egypt_admn97.jpg
25
26
Figure 6
26
Zifta markaz in Gharbiya Governorate 26
http://www.gharbia.gov.eg/en/zefta1.php
Figure 7
Zifta Integrated District Map
27
28
Table 8 and figure 8 summarize the profile of the area covered by this IWMD.
Table 8
General Profile of the South Zifta IWMD, Gharbiya Governorate
Area (in feddans)
39,650
Number of Farmers
20,000
Number of Branch Canals
28
Number of BCWUAs/WBs
26
IWMD created
December- 01
345
IWMD Staff
Permanent
119
Temporary
226
0.87
IWMD Staff/100 Feddans
Permanent
0.30
Temporary
0.57
Crops
Summer (feddans)
32,941
Rice
11,945
Corn
8,896
Cotton
3,707
Banana
—
Sugar Cane
—
Gardens
4,943
Other
3,450
Winter (feddans)
28,112
Berseem
13,179
Wheat
11,641
Banana
—
Sugar Cane
—
Other
3,292
Summer (%)
Rice
36%
Corn
27%
Cotton
11%
Banana
0%
Sugar Cane
0%
Gardens
15%
Other
10%
Winter (%)
Berseem
47%
Wheat
41%
Banana
0%
Sugar Cane
0%
Other
12%
3
Target Deliveries (mm )
Summer
235
142
Winter
70
Gardens
23
3
Target Deliveries (m /feddan)
5,927
Summer
3,581
Winter
1,765
Gardens
Figure 8
29
580
GIS Maps Indicating Sinbo Canal and Zifta
Based on the selection criteria, EQI, in collaboration with key stakeholders, selected
the village of Sinbo el-Kobra for pilot project implementation since it best represented
the solid waste and wastewater management challenges faced on the national level,
particularly in Lower Egypt, allowing for replication in different parts of the country.
As all the villages served by the Sinbo Canal are located to the east of the Damanhour
el-Wahsh Drain (which runs east of the canal), the impact of Sinbo community
activities was greater on the drain. It, therefore, was selected for the study.
30
Accordingly, the pilot area selected is Sinbo el-Kobra, along with the associated
Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain. Pilot projects would be implemented within a restricted
area at the branch canal level, with the BCWUA being the main focal point.
Description of the Pilot Area
The Sinbo Canal and the area it serves are located about 10 km southwest of the town
of Zifta, west of the Damietta Branch of the Nile. The canal is about 6,800 m in
length. Two drains, the Damanhour el-Wahsh and Sinbo, run a few hundreds meters
to the north and south of the canal to receive drainage water from the land irrigated by
the canal. Sinbo Canal receives its water from El-Khadrawiya Canal. The gated intake
of the canal is located approximately 2 km from the center of Sinbo el-Kobra, the
largest of the villages served by the canal. The canal runs a western course from its
origin to the center of Sinbo village, where it makes a sharp, right angle turn to take a
northerly course for the next 3 kms. The canal then takes a meandering, northwesterly
course until it ends near El-Atf Drain. Table 9 summarizes the main features of the
Sinbo Canal.
Table 9
Overview of Sinbo Canal, Zifta, Gharbiya
Length:
6.6 km
Service Area:
2000 feddans
Drainage System:
Covered
Number of Private Irrigation Ditches:
10
Local Councils:
Sinbo el- Kobra Local Council
Number of Water Users:
1,698 users
Number of Villages:
5
Population:
38,000 residents
Inflow:
Khadrawiya Canal
Outflow:
Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain
Covered Area:
4 stretches
Boundaries:
South: El-Atf Drain
North: Sinbo Drain and Selim Canal
East: Sinbo Drain and Selim Canal
West: El-Khadrawiya, Damanhour el-Wahsh
Drain and Om el-Nahl Canal
Three villages are located on the eastern side of the Sinbo Canal in the South Zifta
IWMD. These are Sinbo el-Kobra, Damanhour el-Wahsh and Kafr Shamara. Sinbo elKobra is located at the sharp bend of the Sinbo Canal about 2 km from the beginning
of the canal. Sinbo el-Kobra seems to have expanded considerably to the east and its
present eastern outskirts are less than 1 km from the head of the Sinbo Canal. The
population of Greater Sinbo as of December 2004 was estimated at 17,000. The
31
economic activities in Sinbo are mainly agricultural in nature, including related
activities such as cheese and fodder production. In addition to agricultural activities,
Sinbo also hosts an array of other revenue-generating activities, such as grocery sales,
shoemaking workshops, cloth recycling factories for the production of upholstery
cotton, bicycle assembly and sales, restaurants, and rice processing. Furthermore, a
number of Sinbo residents are government employees in Zifta, Mit Ghamr, and
elsewhere. The villages of Damanhour el-Wahsh (15,000) and Kafr Shamara (6,000)
are smaller replicas of Sinbo el-Kobra.
Land use patterns in the pilot area are typical of villages of the central Delta. By far
the most predominant land use is irrigated agriculture. In the past few decades,
however, population growth has resulted in the encroachment of residential areas on
prime agricultural land. At the present time, the land used for building homes
represents more than 5 percent of available land. Table 10 summarizes land use
categories in Sinbo el-Kobra.
Table 10
Land Use Categories in Sinbo el-Kobra, Zifta, Gharbiya
Category
Residential
Agricultural
Infrastructure and Cemeteries
Ponds and Other
Area (feddans)
107.0
1,635.0
64.0
1.5
Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain is approximately 5 km in length, and runs more or less
parallel to Sinbo Canal. It begins just east of the village of Sinbo el-Kobra and
discharges in El-Atf Drain. It receives its water from several covered drains from the
land on both sides of it. It also receives the untreated sewage of Sinbo el-Kobra,
which is discharged in the drain just east of the village. The drain will also soon
receive untreated sewage from the village of Damanhour el-Wahsh, which is now
constructing its sewage collection network.
32
4.
Stakeholder Mapping and Mobilization
In order to ensure that the planning and implementation of Task 5 activities were
undertaken within the framework of a participatory process and with the active
participation of stakeholders at all stages, relevant NGOs, local government
authorities and BCWUAs in the South Zifta IWMD and the pilot area were selected as
the focal points for project implementation. Focus group meetings were held in the
selected area to introduce the project, and to enhance stakeholders’ role in
encouraging citizens to adopt better waste disposal practices. The IRG/EQI team, in
collaboration with participating local stakeholders, brought together key players at
each of the study locations to form formal working groups in order to spearhead
stakeholder participation and form the nuclei of future water management consortia.
Selection Criteria
Selection criteria included:
•
Extent of involvement in solid waste and wastewater treatment/reuse
•
Available expertise and institutional infrastructure
•
Networking abilities
•
Capacity and inclination to reach out to and work with women in rural
communities.
Stakeholder Mapping
Stakeholders in the Sinbo solid waste and wastewater pilot project were mapped in
consultation with the MWRI, which endorsed the selection of Zifta as the pilot project
location.
Sinbo el-Kobra hosts the Sinbo Local Council, which is the administrative body for
seven villages: Damanhour el-Wahsh, Kafr Shamara, Kafr Ghazi, Kafr el-Zaitoun,
Hanoun, Kafr Ismail, and Kafr Sinbo. The following governmental and nongovernmental institutions are located in Sinbo el-Kobra:
1. Local Community Development Association (declared under registry No. 215,
1970)
2. Samira Moussa Library
3. Samira Moussa Preparatory School (financed by the local community)
4. Wehdat Sinbo School for Basic Education
33
5. Sinbo Mixed Primary School
6. Al-Shohadaa Mixed Secondary School (financed by the local community)
7. Post Office
8. Fire Fighting Unit (financed by the local community)
9. Greater Sinbo Youth Center
10. Veterinary Unit
11. Branch of the Greater Sinbo Holding Company for Drinking Water and Sanitation
12. Subsidized Food Supply Office
13. Social Affairs Unit
14. Social Insurance Unit
15. El-Takamol el-Sehi Hospital (supplied with a dialysis unit for kidney patients
financed by the local community at a cost of L.E.350,000)
16. Civil Registry
17. Public Services Office
18. Information and Decision Support Center
19. Local Development Information Centers Project
20. Greater Sinbo Police Station
21. Public Telecommunications Center
22. One-class-System School
23. Greater Sinbo Agricultural Cooperative
24. Bank of Agricultural Development and Credit
25. The Religious Primary and Preparatory Institute (financed by the local community
at a cost of about L.E.300,000)
26. Mosques administered by the Ministry of Endowments (financed by the local
community at a cost of L.E.3,600,000)
Within South Zifta District, 28 BCWUAs have been formed over the last 7–8 months
to help in water resource management processes, but most of them are not yet ready to
perform their tasks autonomously and are working under the umbrella of the MWRI.
The final stage in mapping stakeholders involved the nomination of the most active
BCWUA to implement the pilot project. Eng. El Tawab nominated Sinbo BCWUA,
one of the two most active BCWUAs in the area, to take this on.
The choice of BCWUA resulted in narrowing down the pilot area to that part that falls
under the supervision of the Sinbo BCWUA—Sinbo el-Kobra, where the canal runs,
along with its associated drain, Damanhour el-Wahsh. In turn, the list of
stakeholders—local authorities, community leaders, and CDAs—was narrowed down
to those located within the boundaries of the selected pilot project area. A list of
stakeholders is given in annex 4.
34
The institutions that are expected to play a key role in the implementation of the pilot
interventions include:
•
Sinbo BCWUA—The Sinbo BCWUA, as an institution, was formally created
during the previous phase of the LIFE–IWMP (Contract # EPP-I-802-03-3013000 Task Order 802), namely the Red Sea Sustainable Development and
Improved Water Resources Management Project. Within the framework of the
previous project, and in an effort to decentralize water resource management and
increase community involvement in the management of their water resources,
26 BCWUAs were formed and recognized in South Zifta, of which the Sinbo
BCWUA was one. 27 Through a Ministerial Decree issued on 16 March 2004, the
formal responsibilities of a BCWUA were identified as: 28
− Following up on irrigation and sanitation in the area and discussing
suggestions related to enhancing irrigation and sanitation systems
− Taking part in water distribution and irrigation scheduling for the different
canals
− Participating in developing priorities related to the maintenance of the
irrigation and sanitation network
− Taking part in problem solving with competent authorities
− Representing farmers in dealings with the relevant authorities
− Raising awareness among water users in relation to water consumption
− Identifying water users’ responsibilities and duties pertaining to water
management and presenting these to the canal representative assembly for
approval
− Establishing participation criteria for involvement in the administrative
management and maintenance of the canal and its divisions and associated
drains
− Setting criteria for financial accounting on behalf of the Water Users
Association and its management
− Holding monthly meetings to review the status of operational programs,
maintenance and financial standing and other relevant activities of the
Association
− Establishing administrative internal regulations to manage the Water Users
Association
− Developing future plans to help further develop the general framework and to
facilitate management.
27
Improved Water Management Component. Stakeholder Participation Activity in Integrated Water Management Districts.
September 2004
28
Improved Water Management Component. “Report of the Stakeholder Participation Activity for the Integrated Water
Resources Management Districts, Appendix B: Process Documentation for Established BCWUAs.” September 2004
35
By the end of the preceding, the BCWUAs’ capacity had been sufficiently built to
enable them to successfully complete their initial development stages, which
included setting up the organization and beginning to develop its organization, as
well as completing work on the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). 29
Official representatives of the Sinbo BCWUA were:
Mr. Said Abdel Hamid El Za
President
Mr. Mahmoud Abdel Hamid Emara
Mr. Medhat Kamal Yamani
Member
Mr. Ahmed Abdel Aziz Al Deif Allah
Member
Mr. Al Shahat Abdel Kader Awad
Member
Ms. Fardos Mohamed Al Khawaga
Member
Mr. Saeid Aboul Ela
•
Treasurer
Member
Sinbo CDA—The Sinbo CDA is an active association in the pilot area that has
taken the initiative to combat many challenges facing the community. Most
notably (and highly relevant to this project) was their participation in the funding
and organization of the “Lowering the Ground Water Level” project to counter the
rising water table caused by mismanagement in wastewater disposal. They are
also active financial contributors to initiatives that help the community, including
committing L.E.500,000 towards building a local hospital. Representatives of the
Sinbo CDA were:
Mr. Sami Al Sayed Ahmed Selimah
President
Mr. Magdi Abdel Hamid Sharaf El Din Secretary
Mr. Magdi Mahrous El Zein
Treasurer
Mr. Mohamed Abbas Selimah
Vice-President
Mr. Abdel Fatah Fayez Farag
Board Member
Mr. Fares Salama Farag Board Member
Mr. Ayman Ahmed Amr Board Member
•
Sinbo Local Council—The Sinbo Local Council is the local governmental
representative authority of the central city council located in the markaz of Zifta.
Its role within the scope of Task 5 was to issue permits pertaining to any
introduced infrastructure developments within their jurisdiction. Furthermore,
they also process legal approvals for the allocation and use of public land.
Process Documentation for Stakeholder Meetings
Many stakeholder and focus group meetings took place over the course of the current
study. The primary aim of these meetings was to come up with suitable solutions for
29
Improved Water Management Component. Stakeholder Participation Activity in Integrated Water Management Districts.
September 2004
36
the chronic solid waste and wastewater problems plaguing both the local community
and the local and central authorities. Another equally important aim of these meetings
was to investigate the extent and roots of the problem to develop adequate solutions.
Training activities are scheduled for the next phase of the project so meetings
focusing on training activities have so far only covered training needs assessments.
Discussions and decisions reached at these meetings provided vital information that
directed the design phase. The meetings were documented by the EQI team in the
form of minutes to ensure accurate information and referencing. Subsequently, a trip
report was sent to the IRG team. Annex 2 contains the trip reports covering all
stakeholder meetings.
Training Needs for Establishing an Autonomous Consortium
In order to successfully set up a consortium made up of representative members from
both the Sinbo BCWUA and CDA, a training needs assessment was conducted to
determine the requirements for a consortium that would be fully capable of
implementing pilot activities in an autonomous fashion. During a meeting of key
stakeholders, an agreement was reached that training activities should more
specifically target board members who would be more deeply involved in decisionmaking concerning the pilot activities, and who would be directly involved in
administrative responsibilities associated with the decisions taken.
Both the local CDA and BCWUA representatives agreed to the need for this
approach, and two training sessions were recommended and approved in order to
fulfill this target. The training program will focus on institutional capacity building in
order to establish the consortium that will spearhead activities in Task 5. Accordingly,
the program complements, rather than overlaps, other training modules implemented
by IRG for the BCWUA in other tasks within this project. Annex 5 provides details
on the training program.
5.
37
Alternatives for Improved Solid Waste Management in
the Pilot Area
Household Waste
Conditions in the Pilot Area
The problem of household waste in the selected pilot area arises from a lack of
recourse to adequate public services that allow for appropriate waste removal and
disposal. Haphazard and inappropriate disposal methods, such as the dumping of
waste in public spaces, are widespread. Disposal of waste in public waterways is
widely practiced in the selected pilot area, and the extent of the problem now requires
the direct intervention of the MWRI.
Household Waste Generation and Composition
The survey of household waste conducted in Sinbo yielded the following results:
•
Household solid waste generation rate = 0.45 kg/person/day
•
Total household waste for Sinbo village = 7–8 tons/day
The pie chart in figure 9 suggests that a higher standard of living than expected exists
in the pilot area. Waste composition is close to that of urban areas, as shown in
figure 10.
Figure 9
Composition of Household Waste in Sinbo Village
2%
2%1%
10%
6%
7%
72%
Organic
Plastic
Paper
Tin
Textile
Glass
Inert
38
Figure 10 Waste Composition in Sinbo Versus Cairo 30
80
72
70
63
60
%weight
50
40
30
Sinbo
East Cairo
20
11
8
10
6
7
2
Organic
waste
Paper
Plastic
Glass
11
5
1
0
2
Metals
1
10
East Cairo
1
Sinbo
Textile
Waste component
Inert
Assessment of Village Streets
Streets are very narrow and badly maintained, and there is no room for waste
collection solutions such as those proposed and operational in large urban areas such
as Cairo and Alexandria. Large transportation equipment is not suitable for the
configuration and condition of streets in the pilot area. Accordingly, simpler
alternatives must be selected.
Proposed Household Waste Management Alternatives
Household solid waste management alternatives were designed on the basis of a daily
household waste generation rate of 7–8 tons, in accordance with the results of the
survey. According to the participants in the survey, around one-third of the organic
waste (equivalent to about 25 percent of the total amount of waste) is used as animal
fodder. Accordingly, it was assumed, for the purpose of developing realistic
alternative solutions, that 75 percent of the total daily output of household waste
would be collected, and that the remaining 25 percent would continue to be used as
animal fodder. Solutions were developed based on an estimate of 6 tons of household
waste to be collected, transported, and disposed of daily.
Five collection and transportation alternatives were proposed, as follows:
30
Environmental Quality Inteernational. Cairo East Tender Project. CGEA Onyx, 2000.
39
1. Scenario 1: An agricultural tractor and a 6 m3 trailer would follow a pre-set route,
collecting household waste every other day according to a fixed schedule and
transporting it to a sorting center located outside the village.
2. Scenario 2: Twenty box trailers of 0.5 m3 capacity would be placed in convenient
locations in the village streets, to be accessible to the maximum number of
residents in the pilot area for the disposal of household waste. The exact
distribution of the boxes would be decided based on input from community
leaders, including representatives from the Sinbo CDA and BCWUA. An
agricultural tractor would collect the box trailers containing waste on a daily basis
and dispose of the waste at the sorting center, and then return the emptied box
trailers to their original locations.
The capacity of the 20 box trailers would be 10 m3 of solid waste. Effective solid
waste management stipulates the collection of at least 75 percent of the waste
generated daily—i.e. 75 percent of the generated 8 tons, which is 6 tons. This
corresponds to 15 m3 (based on a waste density of approximately 400 kg/m3). In
areas where generated solid waste rates are high, box trailers would be emptied
twice daily.
3. Scenario 3: A mule drawn cart would be used instead of mechanical equipment.
The design of the wooden cart would be modified to have a capacity of 4 m3 for
collected waste. The cart would follow a pre-set route, collecting household waste
according to a fixed schedule. The collected waste would be transported to a
sorting center located outside the village. These carts will need to complete
three rounds each day.
4. Scenario 4: As in scenario 1, an agricultural tractor and a trailer of 6 m3 capacity
would be used to collect the waste. Solid waste would be collected from each
household every other day, with the collecting tractor/trailer serving half of the
village each day. After completing the collection round, the tractor would drive
the trailer with its collected waste to the Zifta dumpsite for disposal.
5. Scenario 5: A 7 m3 long-bed truck (3.5 ton) would be used to collect waste,
following a pre-set route. The collection service would serve the entire village in
2 days, allowing for every-other-day waste collection from each household. The
collected waste would then be transported to the Zifta dumpsite for disposal.
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 involve the transportation of collected waste to a sorting center
located near the Damanhour el-Wahsh drain, which is 750 m away from the
residential area of the village, where it would be sorted into recyclables and organics.
The local community, which has expressed its support for the implementation of a
workable solution to the household waste problem, would contribute the land for the
establishment of the sorting center.
As recycling technology would not be available on site, sorted materials would be
stored for sale to a recycling contractor. Some manual pre-treatment, such as
shredding, would be necessary, however, in order to conserve space before sale. Once
40
the waste were sorted, plastic would be shredded manually, using scissors, and then
packed. Metals would be packed as they are, while paper and textiles would be
wrapped manually into bales. Sorted organic components would be composted
aerobically within the sorting center, and mixed with shredded agricultural waste,
when available, to maximize the volume of the resulting fertilizer.
Items generated by the sorting center, whether recyclable material or compost, would
be sold to dealers or farmers. It should be noted that the growth of the recycling
industry has led to the proliferation of dealers in recyclables around most larger cities
in both Upper Egypt and the Delta region. For the village of Sinbo, which lies more or
less midway between the larger towns of Zifta and Tanta, recyclables resulting from
sorting operations could be sold to dealers and workshops in these two towns. An
auction for selling recyclables would be arranged every 2–3 months, and recyclables
sold to the highest bidders. A list of dealers and relevant workshops would be
prepared and made available to the consortium. The compost would be sold to farmers
and nurseries as an organic fertilizer. The market for produced compost is expected to
be limited at first, but would increase as farmers gain greater awareness of the
advantages of natural compost.
The consortium—CDA and BCWUA representatives—would be fully responsible for
implementing the pilot project. In order for the proposed waste management system
(including collection, transportation, and sorting/storing at the sorting site) to be
financially sustainable for the consortium, a fee would have to be charged per
household. This fee could range from L.E. 8–23 per year.
Evaluation of Household Waste Management Alternatives
These criteria were used in selecting the most appropriate solution:
•
Estimated revenues from the sorting center in addition to the suggested collection
fee able to support the project and generate a reasonable profit to ensure the
project’s sustainability
•
Cost of investment and running expenses
•
Effectiveness of service delivery.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
The financial analysis of the proposed municipal solid waste management alternatives
was based on the following assumptions:
•
Revenue would be generated solely by the sorting center since none of the
collection scenarios would be operated on a profit-making basis
•
Since the revenue generated by the sorting center is likely to be insufficient to
ensure the sustainability of the project, the consortium would collect a monthly
fee from beneficiaries (i.e. households)
•
The Sinbo Community Development Association estimates 3,350 households.
would be served
41
•
It is estimated that approximately 35 percent of the beneficiaries would refuse to
pay the fee; therefore, calculations would be based on a collection efficiency of
65 percent, or 2,178 households
•
The sorting center would be run by five workers, and another three workers would
be needed for collection for all scenarios. The average monthly wage is estimated
at L.E.300/worker
•
Calculations are based on a 7-year depreciation period for the equipment
•
A 10 percent contingency is included in calculating investment costs, to take into
account fluctuations in the currency exchange rate and price differences given the
time lag between the design and implementation phases.
The cost/benefit analysis presented in table 11 shows that the income generated by the
sorting center would only cover the expenses of the center, without enough of a profit
margin to support any of the collection scenarios. Accordingly, a fee has to be
collected from beneficiaries in order to generate the profit margin necessary to ensure
the sustainability of the project.
Table 11
Cost/Benefit of Municipal Solid Waste Scenarios (in L.E.)
Item
Quantity
Price
Sc. 1
Sc. 2
Sc. 3
Sc. 4
Sc. 5
I. COLLECTION & TRANSPORTATION
Investment Cost
Agricultural Tractor
1
70,000
6 m Trailer
1
29,900
3
0.5 m Box Trailer
20
3.5 ton Truck
1
Mule-Drawn Cart
2
3
70,000
100,000
29,900
60,000
140,000
20,000
Sub-Total Investment
99,900
130,000
20,000
129,900
140,000
10% Contingency
9,990
13,000
2,000
12,990
14,000
109,890 143,000
22,000
142,890
154,000
Total Investment
Annual Operation Costs
Maintenance Cost (5% of investment)
5,495
7,150
1,100
7,145
7,700
Operation Cost (3% of investment) *
3,297
4,290
3,650
4,287
4,620
Labor Cost (3 workers x L.E 300/month
x 12 months) 31
10,800
10,800
10,800
10,800
10,800
Annual Depreciation (based on 7 years
life)
15,699
20,429
3,143
20,413
22,000
Total Annual Operating Costs
35,290
42,669
18,693
42,644
45,120
Total Collection and Transportation
145,180 185,669
40,693
185,534
199,120
31
Based on 6 days per week, 7 hours per day, excluding annual and official holidays
42
Item
Quantity
Price
Sc. 1
Sc. 2
Sc. 3
Sc. 4
Sc. 5
II. SORTING CENTER
Investment Cost
Wire Mesh Fence
11,000
11,000
11,000
6 m Conveyer Belt for Separation
14,000
14,000
14,000
Manual Scissors
2
500
500
500
Manual Press
1
2,000
2,000
2,000
Hydraulic Bucket for Tractors
1
15,000
15,000
15,000
Water Pump & Hose
1
2,000
2,000
2,000
Sub-Total Investment
44,500
44,500
44,500
-
-
10% Contingency
4,450
4,450
4,450
-
-
Total Investment Cost
48,950
48,950
48,950
-
-
Maintenance Cost (5% of investment)
2,448
2,448
2,448
-
-
Operation Cost (3% of investment) *
1,469
1,469
1,469
-
-
Labor Cost (5 workers x L.E 300/month
x 12 months) 32
18,000
18,000
18,000
-
-
Annual Depreciation (based on 7 years
life)
6,993
6,993
6,993
-
-
28,909
28,909
28,909
-
-
Collection & Transportation
35,290
42,669
18,693
42,644
45,120
Sorting Center
28,909
28,909
28,909
-
-
64,199
71,577
47,602
42,644
45,120
Annual Operating Costs
Operating Costs for I and II
Total Operating Costs
ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE
Recyclables:
Mixed Plastic (tons)
30
700
21,000
21,000
21,000
Mixed Paper (tons)
48
40
1,920
1,920
1,920
Metals (tons)
16
100
1,600
1,600
1,600
Glass (tons)
16
40
640
640
640
Textile (tons)
7
60
420
420
420
350
75
26,250
26,250
26,250
Total Estimated Annual Revenue
51,830
51,830
51,830
-
-
III. Targeted Revenue (to cover total
operating costs and a 10% margin)
70,618
78,735
52,362
46,908
49,632
IV. Net Profit / Loss Before Household
Collections
-18,788
-26,905
-532
-46,908
-49,632
8.63
12.35
-0.24***
21.54
22.79
Compost (tons)
V. Required Annual Fee (to be paid by
household) **
2,178 h.h.
See notes, next page
32
Based on 6 days per week, 7 hours per day, excluding annual and official holidays
43
*
**
Scenario 3: Cost of animal feed is L.E 5/day/mule for 365 days
Based on 3,350 benefiting households and an estimated 65% (2,178) households that will agree
to pay the fees
*** Does not entail a collection fee
According to the cost/benefit analysis above, the fee to be collected from beneficiaries
will vary from one scenario to another, ranging from L.E.0–22.79 per year per
household (i.e. a monthly fee of about L.E.0–2 per household). It is up to the local
community, through the implementing consortium, to decide on the acceptable
scenario and fee, taking into consideration that another fee is to be paid as a running
cost for the wastewater project.
Selection of Best Alternative Solution
Scenarios 4 and 5 are least suitable, particularly as they only ensure the transportation
of municipal solid waste to the Zifta dumpsite without any recycling option.
Moreover, this partial solid waste management would be delivered at the highest
initial investment and running costs.
Scenario 3 appears to be the least costly, both in terms of investment and running
costs. It also would not entail a collection fee. It is suitable for the local village
setting, as well as being socially acceptable. However, it is less rapid in delivering the
solid waste collection and transportation service, and could also negatively affect
traffic congestion.
Scenario 1 appears to be less costly than scenario 2 in terms of both investment and
running costs. In terms of quality of service delivery, however, scenario 2 is the
preferred system, because:
•
Trailer boxes would be available 24 hours a day, so residents would find them
available at any time
•
Direct interaction between workers and residents would not be necessary.
Scenario 2 has a number of disadvantages, however:
•
Residents might object to having trailer boxes placed near their houses
•
There is a risk of spills around the boxes
•
Public awareness efforts would be required to ensure continued use of this
disposal method
•
Delays in emptying trailer boxes would affect street conditions.
Recommended Scenario for Household Waste
Based on this analysis, the TA team recommended scenario 3, followed by scenario 2,
since service delivery is an important consideration in ensuring the success and
sustainability of the project. A stakeholder meeting should be held to decide which
scenario is most suitable to local needs.
44
Agricultural Waste
The survey of the pilot area revealed the magnitude of the agricultural solid waste
management problem, shown mixed with domestic wastes in figure 11. Large
quantities of waste, particularly corn stacks and rice straw, can be seen everywhere,
particularly on canal banks, by roadsides and on walkways, and on top of the covered
sections of the Sinbo Canal (figure 12). Large quantities of waste were also seen
floating in the water in the canal and the drain. The canal maintenance and dredging
slime left on the banks mostly consists of agricultural solid waste. Rice straw or corn
stacks were seen stored on top of houses or in and around the small barns built in
fields. When asked what use they intended to make of the stored material, farmers
said they would be used for cooking and as feed for farm animals.
Figure 11 Domestic and Agricultural Waste in the Sinbo Canal
According to farmers and representatives of the local agricultural cooperative, unused
agricultural waste has to be discarded soon after the harvest to make room for the new
crop. Transporting the waste to a dumpsite is too expensive an option because of the
high cost of transportation coupled with the dumping fee. The growing governmental
pressure on farmers to refrain from burning agricultural waste has left them with only
one option, to dump the waste locally in a public area. Roadsides, canal banks, and
public land created by the covered canals and drains constitute the only available
public space for dumping. Dumping in the canal or along its banks makes more sense
to the farmers, since the waste is regularly removed during the periodic canal clearing
and maintenance carried out by the MIWR.
45
Figure 12 Corn Stalks on the Banks of the Sinbo Canal
Farmers were aware that direct dumping in the canal and the drain would impair water
flow and affect the efficiency of irrigation and drainage services provided by these
vital water conveyance systems. They claimed that the waste is always placed on the
banks but that it often falls into the canal and drain. The farmers and their
representatives said they knew of no better way of getting rid of their agricultural
waste, but expressed their complete willingness to try any practical, less destructive
method for disposing of these wastes, as long as the cost of such a solution is
reasonable and does not eat up their meager profits.
Agricultural Waste and Its Use
The major sources of agricultural waste in the pilot study area are rice, wheat, and
maize, which are the main crops in Egypt in the summer and winter seasons. The
amount of waste generated, however, varies considerably according to the type of
crop, crop handling, and processing.
The solid waste generated by these crops, their potential use, and current disposal
practices include:
•
Maize—In Egypt, solid waste from maize is estimated at about 3.5 million
tons/year. The solid waste generated is in the form of dry stacks as well as dry
cups that remain after the grains are removed. Stacks, dried for 30 days in the sun,
can be used as fuel for farmers’ home ovens. It can also be used as animal feed or
silage, particularly when urea is added. In recent years, burning dry corn stacks
has almost ceased, as other, more modern, low cost sources of energy have
become available. Other uses of dry maize stacks require a certain amount of
processing (such as compost and biogas production), and most farmers tend to
46
discard the stacks or burn them in the field. Dry cups, on the other hand, are used
as a special, high quality fuel and are often sold by farmers at a good price. About
600,000 tons of these dry cups are produced annually.
•
Rice—Rice is one of the most important crops cultivated in Egypt. Rice generates
huge quantities of waste (mainly rice straw) at an average rate of 2.1 tons/feddans.
Based on the average area cultivated with rice annually, it is estimated that close
to 3 million tons/year of rice straw are generated. Some of the waste is used as
animal feed roughage or as bedding under farm animals, to be later mixed with
manure as an organic fertilizer. Rice straw can also be mixed with urea, or
injected with ammonia after being pressed into bales and used as a good farm
animal feed. The majority of rice straw, however, is disposed of, through open
burning in the field.
•
Wheat—Wheat, the main crop in Egypt, is the largest waste generating crop.
More than 6 million tons of hay are produced annually in Egypt at a rate of
2.56 tons per feddan of wheat. Wheat hay is used primarily as animal feed silage
and is not considered a waste problem.
Agricultural Waste Generation in the Pilot Area
Wheat, maize, rice, and clover are the four main waste-generating crops cultivated in
the Sinbo area, as shown in table 12. The total cultivated land area in Sinbo is
3,175 feddans. The area cultivated with these crops every year is calculated to be
6,350 feddans since the land is cultivated twice a year.33, 34
Wheat and maize are usually cultivated in more or less equal proportions, while a
somewhat larger area is planted in rice. The areas cultivated with these crops,
however, may change from year to year. Consequently, the type and quantity of
agricultural solid waste generated in the area varies seasonally and from year to year.
For the purpose of developing a management scheme for these wastes, an average
agricultural solid waste generation rate of 2 tons/feddan/year was used. 35 This gives a
total annual generation rate of around 9,300 tons.
The annually generated 2,800 tons of wheat waste is used by the farmers to feed their
cattle, or sold as a highly desirable animal feed. Approximately 40 percent of the
remaining 6,500 tons/year of maize and rice waste is used by farmers to feed their
farm animals, to build farm fences, or as fuel for cooking and for baking bread. 36 A
few farmers use their agricultural waste, after mixing it with livestock manure, to
make compost, which they use to fertilize their fields. No less than 3,900 tons—
33
It should be noted that this figure is different from the figure mentioned in table 12 below because the latter represents the
cultivated area in Sinbo only, while the former represents the cultivated area of both Sinbo and Damanhour el-Wahsh.
34
A distinction is made here between crop area and land area. Crop area is the summation of the areas cultivated over a number
of seasons yearly, while land area is the physical area of the land. Crop area is always greater than land area since the land is
cultivated more than once yearly.
35
Samir Ahmed Shimy and Bahgat El Sayed Aly. Regional Seminar for Making Use of Agricultural Waste. League of Arab
States. Arab Organization for Agricultural Development. Khartoum 13-15/10/1997. (in Arabic).
36
This number was estimated as a result of discussions with community leaders, farmers, and BCUWA members.
47
representing the remaining 60 percent of the generated waste—were disposed of
either by dumping or by open burning in the fields.
Table 12
Crop Composition and Agricultural Solid Waste Generation in the Sinbo
Canal Pilot Area in Gharbiya, 2004–05 37
Crop
Cultivated Area
(feddans)
Generated Waste
(tons/feddan)
Total
(tons/year)
SUMMER
Maize
1,400
1.9–2.0
2,800
Rice
1,750
1.8–2.1
3,700
2,800
WINTER
Wheat
1,400
2.0–2.5
Clover (Berseem)
1,800
—
Total
6,350
—
9,300
Potential for Reuse of Agricultural Waste
Reuse of agricultural waste seems to be the most appropriate option to address the
present waste disposal problem in the pilot study area. As reuse invariably entails an
incentive in the form of benefits associated with useful utilization of this otherwise
useless material, the option of reusing their agricultural waste was widely accepted
among all the farmers and farmer representatives interviewed. Although the direct
benefit margin for waste reuse is not usually high, farmers looked at it as an
acceptable means to solve the chronic waste disposal problem while avoiding
transportation and dumping fees as well as fines for illegal dumping or open burning,
and maintaining an operating water conveyance network. Some farmers also
expressed their interest in the idea of waste reuse on purely environmental grounds.
Potential agricultural solid waste reuse options include:
•
Production of compost for use as a clean and environmentally safe organic
fertilizer
•
Production of unconventional, high value animal fodder after supplementation
with proper elements
•
Biogas production
•
Mushroom culturing.
The community reacted positively to the first two options. Biogas production and
mushroom culturing are new to the community, however, so they preferred not to
enter into an activity with which they were unfamiliar. In addition, biogas production
37
Verbal reports from representatives of the Sinbo Agricultural Cooperative and BCWUA head.
48
is impractical, since it requires space, maintenance, and a complete revamping of the
waste flow system.
There are, however, certain constraints that have to be taken into account when
considering different options for the reuse of agricultural solid waste:
•
Availability is seasonal
•
Composition of available waste is highly inconsistent
•
An initial investment is required
•
If sophisticated technology is used, the operation and maintenance costs can be
high
•
If not carried out on site, the additional cost of transportation and possible storage
can be high.
Proposed Agricultural Waste Management Alternatives
Based on this analysis, it may be concluded that a practical scheme for agricultural
solid waste disposal should focus on waste reuse, if it is to be acceptable to the local
farmers. A reuse approach will provide the necessary incentive for the farmers to
actively play their expected role in the management intervention. The scheme
described below and its different scenarios are all based on this principle.
Based on the calculated average agricultural sold waste generation of around
4,000 tons/year of mostly rice straw and dry corn stacks, a reuse scheme consisting of
compost and animal fodder production is proposed. The scheme capitalizes on the fast
expanding market for compost as well as the high demand for quality animal fodder
that can be produced by the partial processing of agricultural waste and the use of
supplemental elements. The scheme also calls for on-site processing of the waste to
minimize the costs and the transportation problems.
According to the available data on the area, milk and meat production is an important
activity, with several intensive cattle farms operating in the area. These farms, which
keep an average of approximately 10,000 heads of cattle, consume large quantities of
animal feed. 38 Accordingly, a large local demand for quality animal feed exists and
can be further developed. The local production of animal feed from agricultural waste
will have a competitive edge over products produced elsewhere because of the low
cost of transportation.
In addition, cattle kept by the individual farmers or the intensive milk or meat
production farms, generate large quantities of cattle manure. This manure can be
mixed with agricultural waste to produce high quality compost. The rate of manure
production is 20 kg/cow/day, which totals about 70,000 tons/year for the 10,000 cows
kept in the area. 39 Manure is rich in organic and essential elements for plants. It
38
Statistics provided by the local Agricultural Cooperative.
39
Ali, B.E., “Bio-energy from Organic Residues for Rural Egypt,” thesis for Ph.D. Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University.
49
contains 30 percent dry matter (about 6 kg/day), 70 percent organic matter, 1.5–
2 percent nitrogen (depending on the feeding system and if the cattle produces milk or
meat), 0.7–0.8 percent phosphorus, and 1.2–1.4 percent potassium. Manure can be
composted with agricultural waste such as maize and rice straw to produce an organic,
high quality fertilizer. The organic matter content of the fertilizer will vary from 30–
50 percent, and the nitrogen content will be no less than 1.5 percent. The compost
will generally be free from pathogens, bacteria, and nematodes. Compost can be
produced in the fields by mixing piles properly.
A win–win management of agricultural waste would be the transformation of such
waste to either high quality animal feed (silage) or compost. The incentive for farmers
to adopt such management practices would be the profits from the sale of the
processed agricultural waste, or the animal feed and compost generated for their own
use.
Proposed Processing Techniques
•
Maize Stacks—Maize stacks, dry or green, would be collected in the field and
shredded into small pieces using a mechanical shredder. The shredded material
would then be compressed and placed in a special 3 × 4 m hole excavated to a
depth of 0.8–1.0 m and lined with plastic film, in a corner of the field. A
commercially available decomposition-enhancing mixture such as the “El Mofid”
solution (a solution composed of molasses, urea, and mineral salts) would be
added, and the mixture covered with plastic film and left in place for 30–40 days.
The resulting fodder could then be removed and used to feed farm animals. The
volume of the processed product (silage) would be 80 percent of the original
stack. Equipment required would consist of a mechanical shredder, a press, and an
agricultural tractor.
•
Rice Straw—Rice straw would be compressed into bales to reduce its volume and
stored until used. One suggested potential use option is livestock bedding (which
would eventually be mixed with manure and ultimately be used to make high
quality compost.) Only a mechanical press is required.
Alternatively, compressed rice straw could be fed to animals, but this is not a good
quality fodder, and is not preferred by animals.
•
Maize Stacks and Rice Straw—Maize stacks and rice straw could be shredded in
the field and the shredded material treated with ammonia liquid or urea, then
stacked into large piles and covered with plastic film. It would be left for 3–
4 weeks to decompose and used as animal feed. Required equipment would
consist of a mechanical shredder, a press, and an agricultural tractor. This
technique is not recommended, however, since ammonia liquid and urea must be
carefully handled to ensure safety, and the quantities must be carefully adjusted.
•
Wheat Straw—Wheat straw could be used as animal feed without processing and
is not considered a problem. It will not be further discussed in this study.
50
Only the first two processing techniques will be considered in the analysis of
alternative options.
Proposed Management Alternatives
Three scenarios are envisaged:
1. Scenario 1: Farmers Process Their Own Agricultural Waste—In this scenario,
the farmers would be in charge of transforming agricultural waste into high
quality animal feed or compost. Each is free to recycle his waste either in his own
fields or at some other place of his choice. Each has the freedom to undertake
processing individually or in groups. Farmers might, however, have recourse to
technical assistance from the local BCWUA and Sinbo CDA consortium, which
would advise them on the best ways to process the agricultural waste, and would
provide them with the needed equipment at a rental fee. The produced silage or
compost would be used by the farmers, or sold independently as animal feed or as
a soil fertilizer.
2. Scenario 2: Farmers and Consortium to Collaborate in Processing
Agricultural Waste In-Situ—In this scenario, the farmers and the consortium
cooperate to get rid of the waste. The consortium provides the equipment for free,
and the farmers processes the agricultural waste in the field. They either produce
silage from maize stacks, or compost from rice straw. Each farmer designates a
certain area in his field for processing the relevant waste. The area for processing
depends on the type and the volume of raw agricultural waste. Additives such as
“El Mofid” for silage, or cattle manure for rice straw would be provided by the
farmer. The farmer keeps part of the produced silage/compost for his own use.
The remaining product would be turned over to the consortium, which would be
responsible for its marketing. The revenue generated from the sale of the product
would be shared by the farmer and the consortium on the basis of a negotiated
agreement.
3. Scenario 3: Consortium to Process Agricultural Waste in the Sorting
Center—In this scenario, the consortium would be in charge of processing
agricultural waste in the sorting center to produce compost and animal feed. This
scenario is dependent on the selection of one of the first three household options
proposed above (which entail the establishment of a sorting center). The suggested
scenario is that the consortium buys the agricultural waste from farmers. The
consortium would pay farmers L.E.20/feddan for rice straw and L.E.30/feddan for
maize stacks. 40 The consortium assumes responsibility for the transportation of
the waste from the farmers’ fields to the sorting center at no charge to farmers.
The production of animal feed and compost would follow the same processing
techniques implemented in the previous scenarios, where maize stacks would be
40
Since there are no weighing scales, it would be easier to deal with agricultural waste by feddan.
51
processed in a fermentation pit, and rice straw mixed with organic materials to
form compost.
Evaluation of Agricultural Waste Management Alternatives
The following criteria were used in selecting the most appropriate solution:
•
Benefits all parties (farmers, MWRI, Ministry of Environment, and public)
•
Requires low capital investment
•
Requires simple technology
•
Allows safe disposal of the largest percentage of agricultural waste.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
The financial analysis of the proposed agricultural waste management options was
based on the following assumptions:
•
Maize Stacks
− An average of 1,400 feddans are cultivated with maize annually
− Average volume of generated maize stacks per feddan = 1.9 tons
− Average generated silage per feddan (80 percent of initial weight) = 1.52 tons
− Total annual generation of maize stacks = 1.9 × 1,400 = 2,660 tons/year
− Total annual production of silage per feddan (80 percent of raw stack weight)
= 0.80 × 2,660 = 1,702 tons/year
− Additives (El-Mofid solution)= L.E.5/feddan
− Average selling price for one ton of silage = L.E.200
− Transportation cost per feddan is L.E.20, i.e. the annual cost of transportation
of maize is 20 × (1,400 × 0.60) = L.E.16,800 (Farmers would keep 40 percent
of the maize stack waste for their own usage and only 60 percent of the waste
would be transported to the sorting center).
•
Rice
− An average of 1,750 feddans are cultivated with rice annually
− Average volume of generated rice straw per feddan = 2.1 tons/feddan
− Average generated cattle manure per head per year 41 = 7.3 tons
− Average generated cattle manure per feddan per year = 22 tons
− Proportions of rice straw to manure = 40–60 percent
− Average compost production per feddan = 0.80 × 1.9 = 1.52 tons
− Average generated rice straw per feddan = 2.1 tons
− Selling price of compost = L.E.10/ton 42
41
42
Based on three cattles per feddan and 20 kg of manure per cattle per day.
The selling price of compost should be low, given that it is a newly introduced type of fertilizers; accordingly, farmers would
need to be encouraged to use it.
52
− Total annual generated rice straw = 2.1 × 1750 = 3,675 tons
− Rice straw will have to be mixed with organic materials from the sorting
center in order to improve the quality of produced compost. Mixing ratios are
60 percent organic material to 40 percent rice straw, i.e. total quantity of the
mix is 1.6 × 3,675 = 5,880 tons/year
− Average compost from the mix is 40 percent of the initial straw weight = 0.4 ×
5,880 = 2,352 tons/year
− Farmers are not making use of rice straw
− Transportation cost per feddan is L.E.20, i.e. the annual cost of transportation
of rice straw is 20 × 1,750 = L.E.35,000.
Field Equipment
•
A 10 percent contingency is considered in the calculation of the investment cost
related to the purchase of needed equipment, to take into account the fluctuation
of currency exchange rates and price differences given the time lag between the
design and implementation phases
•
Rental cost of equipment (based on two hours rent/feddan):
− Shredder = L.E.20/feddan
− Press = L.E.20/feddan
− Tractor = L.E.40/feddan
•
Two seasonal workers would be needed in the field for equipment operation
•
Each worker would be paid LE300/month for a period of 3 months.
Sorting Center
Composting activity in the sorting center would be performed by the same municipal
solid waste management crew undertaking composting of household waste.
Table 13 shows the cost/benefit analysis of the proposed scenarios for the
management of agricultural waste in the Sinbo Canal area.
Table 13
Cost/Benefit Analysis for Proposed Agricultural Waste Management
Scenarios
Item
Quantity
Cost (L.E.)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
INVESTMENT COST
Agricultural Tractor
1
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
Mechanical Press
1
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
Shredder
1
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
102,000
102,000
102,000
Subtotal Investment
10% Contingency
Total Investment
Total Investment/feddan
10,200
10,200
10,200
112,200
112,200
112,200
36
36
36
Item
Quantity
Cost (L.E.)
Scenario 1
53
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
5,610
5,610
5,610
3,366
3,366
3,366
1,800
1,800
1,800
16,000
16,000
16,000
20 /feddan
--
--
37,800
--
--
77,000
5/feddan
--
4,200
4,200
4,400/feddan
--
39,600
22,500
Total Annual Operating Cost
26,776
70,576
168,276
Total Annual Operating Cost/
feddan
9
22
53
200/ton
--
304
304
10/ton
--
21
21
Rental of equipment 52
182,000
--
--
53
182,000
426,350
426,350
58
135
135
155,224
355,774
258,074
49
113
82
ANNUAL OPERATING COST
Maintenance 43
Operation cost
Labor cost
44
45
Annual depreciation
Transportation cost
46
47
Farmer incentives
Additives (El Mofid) 48
Revenue loss from land used for
processing 49
ANNUAL REVENUES
Silage produced value/feddan
50
Rice straw converted to
compost/feddan 51
Total Annual Revenue
Total Annual Revenue/feddan
Total Annual Net Profit
Total Annual Net Profit / feddan
54
Table 13 represents a complete analysis of the costs/benefits for the different
scenarios for the pilot project. The annual operating costs/feddan is lowest for
scenario 1, since the consortium does not pay for land use or additives, which are the
farmers’ responsibility. Scenario 3, on the other hand, has the highest annual
operating cost/feddan, due to the added cost of transportation and farmers’ incentives.
43 Based on 5 percent of investment cost
44 Based on 3 percent of investment cost
45 Based on 2 workers × L.E.300/month × 3 months
46 Based on 7-year period
47 Based on 60 percent of total cultivated area (3,150 feddans × 60 percent)
48 Based on 60 percent of the maize cultivated area (1,400 feddans × 60 percent)
49 For scenario 2, each feddan will need 12 m2 for processing of waste (i.e. 9 feddans); while in scenario 3, only 5 feddans will be required.
50 Based on 1.52 ton/feddan × 200 L.E./ton of silage
51 Based on 2.1 ton/feddan of compost × 10 L.E./ton of compost
52 Based on L.E.80/feddan of maize (1,400 feddans of maize) and L.E.40/feddan of rice (1,750 feddans of rice)
53 For Scenarios 2 and 3, based on L.E.304/feddan of maize (1,400 feddans) and L.E.21/feddan of rice (1,750 feddans)
54
The profit/feddan from the pilot project is also illustrated for the three scenarios.
Scenario 2 generates the biggest profit. However, this profit would be shared between
the consortium and the farmers, based on an agreed distribution of profits. Scenario 1
assumes the generation of revenue to the consortium from the rental cost of
equipment to farmers.
Selection of Best Solution
In the case of scenarios 1 and 2, farmers would substantially benefit from producing
silage, a high quality animal feed that can be used throughout the year. In addition,
rice straw composting would produce high quality fertilizer that farmers could use,
saving the expenses of buying chemical fertilizers. The use of compost would also
reduce the extent of environmental pollution associated with the widespread use of
chemical fertilizers.
Scenarios 1 and 2 have a number of disadvantages. First, farmers must allocate a 3 ×
4 m piece of land for the production of silage/feddan. Next, the processing of rice
straw entails a financial burden for farmers, as the expenses exceed estimated profits,
and the farmers would also need to allocate considerable land to stock the compressed
rice straw until it is used as bedding. Taking this relatively large piece of land out of
agricultural production would entail a financial loss that is likely to deter farmers
from processing rice straw, in which case they will continue to dump it randomly. It
may be argued that the expected benefits from processing maize stacks might
outweigh the loss incurred from the processing of rice straw. However, farmers
cultivate one type of crop per season, and rice and maize are both summer crops,
which means that farmers would either be generating substantial benefits or
substantial losses. Accordingly, in either scenario, the problems associated with the
disposal of rice straw in Sinbo would only be partially solved.
Scenario 2 favors the farmers more, since the consortium would provide them with
the use of the equipment for free. The farmers would consume the needed quantities
of the products and share the revenues from the silage/compost with the consortium in
return for its services. However, one disadvantage of this scenario is that it might be
difficult for the farmers and the consortium to agree on the amount of silage to be kept
by the farmer, and how the profits should be shared. Another drawback is the limited
storage life of silage from maize stacks. While it can remain in the fermentation pit
for up to 9 months, once it is out of the pit it should be used within no more than
3 days. Accordingly, large volumes of silage cannot be sold at once.
As for scenario 3, its main advantage is that it deals with both types of waste, maize
stacks and rice straw, while still generating a profit. Moreover, this scenario generates
incentives to farmers at no additional cost, where farmers would not only get rid of
their agricultural waste but would also get L.E.30/feddan in return for their maize
stacks and/or L.E.20/feddan for rice straw. However, this scenario poses a risk for the
consortium, since it would be responsible for marketing and selling the waste. As
55
indicated earlier, the market for compost would be limited initially, until farmers gain
greater awareness of the advantages of compost as compared with chemical fertilizers.
Recommended Scenario for Agricultural Waste Management
Agricultural waste remains an environmentally worrying problem. Within the context
of Sinbo village, three scenarios have been proposed for the management of
agricultural waste resulting from the cultivation of maize and rice. All three scenarios
look at the transformation of these wastes into lucrative materials—high quality
animal feed and compost. In these scenarios, farmers would process their agricultural
waste in their fields either on their own, or in collaboration with the BCWUA/CDA
consortium, or, as a third option, the consortium would manage the waste in the
sorting center. Selection of the most suitable scenario will be the responsibility of the
Sinbo community.
Although scenario 2 appears to be the best choice from the financial point of view, it
should be noted that the generated profit would be shared between the farmers and the
consortium. Accordingly, it is not the most profitable for the consortium. In addition,
scenarios 2 and 3 assume that the consortium is responsible for the marketing of the
products, which increases the consortium’s responsibility, increasing its risk of
success.
Although scenario 1 generates the least profit, it is the recommended scenario,
because farmers would benefit from the processed waste and the consortium would, at
the same time, generate profit for the sustainability of the project. Moreover,
scenario 1 does not entail marketing risks since the farmers would use the end product
and not necessarily sell it.
56
6.
Improved Wastewater Management
The prolonged infiltration of wastewater from unlined septic tanks in Sinbo has
surpassed the soil’s capacity for carrying liquids, particularly as the groundwater table
is already high in this agricultural area. While no records of past or present water table
levels in Sinbo are available, the local community indicated that the situation had
reached a point where the floors of houses in downtown Sinbo have become
submerged in contaminated groundwater, to the extent that inhabitants had to walk on
bricks in order to avoid stepping on the soaking floor. As a result, resident began
abandoning their houses. This had several negative socioeconomic impacts, most
notably a drastic drop in the value of real estate.
In a community-driven effort .to lower the water table level, which they named the
Groundwater Lowering Project, the Sinbo community constructed their own sewage
collection network system that discharges into the Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain. The
collected sewage is discharged into the drain in its raw form without any treatment.
Figure 13 is a schematic of this sewage collection network.
Figure 13 Schematic of the Sewage Collection Network in Sinbo Village
12’’ sewer
10’’ sewer
Main Sewer
Formatted: Bullets and
Numbering
57
The decision of the local community to opt for this solution, even though it is
damaging to the environment, can be understood in light of the need for rapid
intervention and the limited resources available. The community argues that the
wastewater used to be dumped in the drain anyway, if not into the canals. The
violation of Law 48, however, remains a heavy liability and is also a source of serious
environmental hazards. Accordingly, an appropriate solution tailored to Sinbo’s
situation, needs, and resources, is crucial.
Unfortunately, neither calculation notes nor proper execution drawings were issued or
made available to the consultant, and the only information available to the team was
obtained by interviewing community leaders, the Water Users Association, and the
CDA. However, one community leader later provided a schematic drawing of the
network, identifying the diameters of the pipes used. This schematic is believed to
have been prepared specifically for the technical assistance team.
According to this schematic, Sinbo village is served by multiple 6- and 8-inch sewers
connected to households. These sewers are connected to two 10-inch sewers that
encircle downtown Sinbo and are ultimately connected to the main 12-inch sewer that
discharges into the Damanhour el-Wahsh drain and is level with the drain bed.
Roughly 60 percent of the population of Sinbo village is currently connected to the
network. The Greater Sinbo CDA provided the following description of the network:
•
The construction of the wastewater network effectively resulted in lowering the
groundwater level. Consequently, real estate values increased, with prices spiking
from a low of L.E.5/m2 to L.E110, over a 1-year period.
•
The overall cost of the wastewater network is estimated at L.E.400,000. The
network was designed to accommodate the current Sinbo population, estimated at
17,000 people. Since only 8.5 km out of the planned 11.5 km of the network have
materialized, 12,500 people (2,500 households) are currently making use of the
network.
•
Network subscription fees are L.E.250/bathroom/household, with an additional
monthly fee of L.E.1 to cover operation and maintenance.
•
The executed 8.5 km network consists of:
− The main 12-inch sewer of 602 m in length
− Two 10-inch sewers totaling 3,130 m in length
− An 8-inch sewer used in the main streets totaling 1,960 m in length
− 6-inch sewers totaling 3,808 m in length
− 160 tapered manholes with a diameter of 1 m at the bottom and 0.75 m at the
top, covered with circular reinforced concrete caps.
•
All mosques, and some of the governmental institutions in Sinbo have access to
the sewage network.
•
Based on the actual water supply bills of the 1,500 subscribed households (i.e.
1,500 water counter):
58
− Monthly municipal water consumption is estimated at 25,000 m3
−
Water consumed by governmental institutions is estimated at 3,628 m3.
Identification of Alternative Technologies
Six different wastewater treatment technologies will be discussed in the present
section. These alternatives vary from the conventional method to the package unit
passing by the traditional low technology septic tank. The suitability of each of these
six technologies to the local context will then be analyzed to determine the most
convenient treatment methods.
The identification of alternative technologies depends on an array of parameters
spelled out in the Egyptian Code of Practice for the Design and Construction of Water
and Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Pumping Stations (Ministerial Decree
No. 169/1997, Third Edition, 2004)—the size of the population, the projected life
span of the facility, and the volume of generated wastewater. These design criteria are
discussed as a basis for estimating each parameter.
•
Population—The 1996 Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics
(CAPMAS) census estimated the population of Sinbo and Kafr Sinbo at 7,056 and
1,021 persons, respectively. The actual 2005 Sinbo and Kafr Sinbo population was
estimated based on the projection of these figures using the Geometrical Increase
Method. 55 The 2005 projected population is calculated according to the following
formula:
Ln Pn = Ln P1 + Kg (tn-t1)
Where:
Pn = Projected population
P1 = Latest population census
Kg = Geometrical increase rate (taken 2.7 percent according to the
CAPMAS 1986 estimate referenced in the Egyptian Code of
Practice for the Design and Construction of Potable Water Pipes
and Wastewater Sewers, 9th edition, 2004)
tn = Projection year
t1= Latest census year
Hence:
Ln P2005 = Ln (7,056 + 1,021) + (2.7/100) (2005-1996)
P2005 = 10,298 capita
A report submitted by the Sinbo CDA, however, states that the Sinbo communityfunded wastewater collection network was conceived to accommodate an actual
55
This method is provided in the Egyptian Code of Practice for the Design and Construction of Water and Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and Pumping Stations (Ministerial Decree No.169/1997, 3rd Edition, 2004) for the population projection of an existing
settlement.
59
population of 16,753 persons. Given that the estimated figure of 10,298 is based
on a geometrical projection, a conservative approach would be to consider the
more likely actual figure provided by the Sinbo CDA. Accordingly, the design
population is estimated at 17,000 persons.
•
Life Span of the Facility—The code estimates the design life span of wastewater
treatment facilities to range between 30 and 50 years. Determination of the design
life span will have an impact on the population to be served. The size of the
population to be served is projected according to the design year, volumes of
wastewater to be discharged, needed land, and of particular significance, the cost
of the treatment facility.
In the case of Sinbo, most, if not all, of the above-mentioned factors make it
difficult to meet even the minimum design life span specified in the code. The
specified minimum of 30 years would result in the following design population:
Ln P2035 = Ln 17,000 + (2.7/100) (2035-2005)
P2035 = 38,214 capita
The collection network is not conceived to accommodate this doubled population,
and the cost of such an intervention is far beyond the budget of this project. To
illustrate the cost constraint, the cost needed for a Dual Biological Aerated Filter
treatment unit (DBAF) with a 30-year life span for an actual population of
17,000 is LE1,800,000. This figure does not include taxes and the cost of civil and
electro-mechanical works. The DBAF unit was selected as a feasible illustrative
example for the assessment of cost as it requires a minimal land investment (6 ×
6 m2 in this case), as opposed to the septic tanks alternative, where the cost is
slightly lower than that of the DBAF unit, but the size of land required is much
more extensive.
In light of the above, the design life span of the treatment facility will be
determined according to the actual generated wastewater of Sinbo, taking into
consideration the following factors:
− The treatment of wastewater generated by the actual households already
connected to the sewer collection network, i.e. 60 percent of the population
− The projected Sinbo population (100 percent) expected to be connected to the
collection network subject to the payment of the necessary fee.
•
Design Discharge Volume—Sources of wastewater are municipal, industrial,
infiltration, and rainwater. In the case of Sinbo, the actual collection network does
not accommodate industrial discharges; it only serves households and a few
administrative buildings, such as schools. In addition, the actual network does not
provide for rainwater collection. The sewers are composed of polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) pipes, so that infiltration of groundwater to the sewers is negligible, and
occurs only at sewer connections and manholes. Accordingly, only municipal
wastewater will be considered in estimating discharge volumes.
60
According to the Egyptian code, the design volume of wastewater is a function of
the volume of consumed water, where the average estimated volume of
wastewater is derived from the average annual water consumption rate according
to the following formula: 56
Qav. (wastewater) = (0.8 to 0.9) Qav. (consumption)
In water network design, it is vital to accurately evaluate the different water
consumption rates throughout the day, month, and season, where:
− The maximum monthly consumption rate is used in the design of water
treatment plants
− The maximum daily consumption rate is used in the design of main and
secondary water pipes, in addition to the design of water storage units
− The maximum hourly consumption rate is used for the design of household
water connections.
Table (1-2) of the Egyptian Code of Practice for the Design and Construction of
Potable Water Pipes and Wastewater Sewers, 9th edition, 2004, estimates the
average daily water consumption rates. These rates are shown in table 14.
Estimated Water Consumption Rates 57
Table 14
User
Average Daily Consumption Rate
(liter/capita/day)
Governorate capitals (cities)
180
Districts
150
Villages of up to 50,000 inhabitants
125
New cities
280
Based on these estimates, wastewater volume to be treated for Sinbo would be:
Theoretical average wastewater volume for the actual 17,000 inhabitants =
0.8 × 17,000 × (125/1000) = 1,700 m3/day
and
Theoretical average wastewater volume for the population (60 percent)
currently connected to the collection network = 1,700 × (60/100) =
1,020 m3/day
56
Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, National Center for Housing and Building Research, Egyptian Code
for Design and Implementation of Potable and Waste Water Treatment Plants and Pumping Stations. 2004.
57
Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, National Center for Housing and Building Research, Egyptian Code
for Design and Implementation of Sanitary Pipes for Potable and Waste Water, and Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban
Communities, National Center for Housing and Building Research, Egyptian Code for Design and Implementation of Potable
and Waste Water Treatment Plants and Pumping Stations. Both 2004.
61
These volumes, which are a theoretical estimate of generated wastewater in a rural
area, represent an unmanageable discharge that would hinder an intervention
tackling the wastewater treatment problem. Accordingly, the team assessed the
actual generated wastewater volumes. Two methods were considered: measuring
the actual discharge, and estimating the discharge based on the actual
consumption rates according to the method stated in the code.
− Measuring Actual Discharge—In theory, it is possible to collect wastewater in
a bucket of a known volume and measure the time needed for the bucket to be
filled, and calculate the discharge accordingly, where the discharge is the
result of the volume divided by the time.
However, during the several field visits conducted, either the discharge of the
main sewer was almost nonexistent, or the sewer was partially covered with
water. It was not possible, therefore, to collect wastewater from the main
sewer. In addition, a 24-hour wastewater measurement throughout different
times of the year is also necessary in order to estimate the average annual
wastewater generation rates. The measurement of actual discharge was,
therefore, discarded for practical reasons, including time limitations.
− Estimating Discharge Based on Actual Consumption Rates—According to the
information provided by both the Sinbo CDA and the Sinbo water authorities,
water consumption based on actual water billing is approximately 29,000 m3
per month, which amounts to about 1,000 m3 per day.
According to the Egyptian Code of Practice, wastewater is about 80 percent of
consumed water. Accordingly, the estimated volume of wastewater produced
= 0.8 × 1,000 = 800 m3/day. Therefore, the estimated volume of wastewater
ranges from 480–800 m3/day for 60 percent to 100 percent service,
respectively. These are the figures that will be taken into account in the design
alternatives discussed below.
Technical Constraints
In the absence of accurate data about the exact population and volume of generated
wastewater, the design team relied on engineering judgment based mainly on the
Egyptian Code of Practice for the Design and Construction of Water and Wastewater
Treatment Facilities and Pumping Stations, and the Egyptian Code of Practice for the
Design and Construction of Potable Water Pipes and Wastewater Sewers.
Accordingly, applied design data are estimated to the best of our knowledge, at a
confidence level of 80 percent.
A number of other issues need to be highlighted, as they may impact the findings and
recommendations of this report:
•
No calculation sheets or detailed maps were found for the constructed wastewater
network in Sinbo. As such, the sole sources of information on the adequacy of
design and operation of this network were consultations with residents and visual
62
assessments from site reconnaissance visits. If the network were actually
improperly designed, then this would hamper the success of the overall
intervention at the end of the network.
•
One would reasonably expect that the treatment of municipal wastewater using the
treatment unit would improve the overall water quality in Damanhour el-Wahsh
drain as it passes by Sinbo village. The overall water quality, however, may be
compromised by the continued practice of dumping medical waste into the drain.
Furthermore, while the discharge of untreated wastewater to the drain by other
villages upstream from Sinbo is an exogenous factor, it would negatively affect
the overall water quality of the drain.
•
Egyptian laws and regulations protect fertile agricultural land. Accordingly, the
allocation of a piece of land in Sinbo, which is located in the fertile Delta region,
for a wastewater treatment plant is an important technical and administrative
consideration. Obtaining governmental permission for the use of agricultural land
for a purpose other than agriculture is a lengthy and complicated issue. The
smaller the parcels of land required, the more feasible this will be.
•
Sustainability of project benefits are dependent on the strong commitment of the
local community (both local population and local council) to maintain the
wastewater treatment plant. The local community must be able to provide the
necessary funds to maintain it, and to collaborate to prevent vandalism from
occurring.
Given these constraints, consultation with the MWRI/IRG team and stakeholders was
sought at the early stages of project conceptualization in order to narrow down
options for treatment plants to those that were considered feasible, particularly in
terms of cost and land requirement. The presentation used for the discussion of
technical constraints with the MWRI/IRG team during a brainstorming session on
3 March 2005, and that used for the discussion of alternatives with Sinbo community
representatives (in Arabic), held in Sinbo on 14 March 2005, are presented in annex 2.
Proposed Wastewater Management Alternatives
The following alternatives were considered:
1. Separation of grey and black wastewater
2. Combined trenches/collection network system
3. Treatment at discharge points using conventional methods
4. Treatment at discharge points using stabilization ponds (or one of its variants)
5. Treatment at discharge points using septic tanks
6. Treatment at discharge points using package units (DBAF system).
•
Separation of Grey and Black Wastewater—This kind of treatment consists of
at-source separation of grey water from black water. Grey water refers to
wastewater generated from daily household activities (washing, bathing, and
cooking), whereas black water is wastewater from toilets.
63
The treatment concept assumes that 95 percent of household wastewater is grey
water, that this is free from pathogens, and that the dissolved or suspended organic
materials it contains can be easily treated. Toilet wastewater could be safely
treated through the double-pit latrine system. This type of system was
implemented in several villages in Beni Suef within the framework of the
Regional Water and Sanitation Project (RWSP), financed by FINNIDA. Details of
the method and a case study in Fashn, are given in annex 6.
The possibility of adopting the separation system in Sinbo was investigated. The
option was not well received by the local community, given that they had already
financed the wastewater collection network in order to get what they considered to
be an appropriate system. At the same time, the flushing system in place in most
toilets in Sinbo does not allow for the flushing of limited water quantities, which
is imperative for the efficient functioning of the double-pit latrine. The
implementation of the separation system would entail additional plumbing works
in Sinbo houses. For these two reasons, this option was dismissed.
•
Combined Trenches/Collection Network System—Another option for the
management of Sinbo wastewater is to adapt abandoned trenches so that they can
be used as local septic tanks, as shown in figure 14, and to use the last 50 m of the
main sewer that is discharging into the Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain as an
infiltration gallery. This would be accomplished by perforating the last 50 m of
the sewer, and covering the perforated part with a filter that would be formed of
layers of fine sand, gravel, and a PVC sheet (illustrated in figure 15).
Figure 14 Actual and Suggested Schematic Wastewater Flow Diagram
Actual flow sequence
Building
Suggested flow sequence
Inspection chamber
Manhole
Abandoned trenches / Modified septic tanks
64
Figure 15 Cross-section of the Perforated Sewer and the Filter
PVC Sheet around the filter
Sewer perforated over the last 50m
Fine sand & gravel filter
~ 1.40m
Modification of the discarded trenches consists of lining the trench walls with a
transversal baffle wall that would force the flow in a manner that would allow
for a longer retention time so that the natural anaerobic treatment and the
precipitation of suspended solids could take place. Through the use of a
modified waste delivery route, wastewater from toilets would be channeled to
the modified septic tanks where it would be initially treated. Subsequently,
trench-treated water would reach the manhole and ultimately the drain, to
receive further treatment over the last 50 m of the pipe. The present route
consists of channeling the wastewater from toilets to the inspection chamber to
the drain without any treatment. The modified trench is illustrated in figure 16.
Figure 16 Cross-section of Modified Trench
Baffle wall
Accumulated sludge
65
In this option, no additional land is required, and the cost of implementation
would be L.E.1,000 per household; in addition to L.E.5,000 for the adaptation of
the last 50 m of the 12-inch sewer.
This option was not well received by the local community because most trenches
are constructed underneath the houses and they do not want further plumbing
works in the homes. Moreover, this option poses technical difficulties given that
the level of the sewer is higher than that of the disused trenches. This is because
the Sinbo residential area lies on the lower contour lines of the village. As a result,
most households have had to raise their bathrooms above ground level in order to
accommodate the new wastewater collection sewers. Finally, the quality of the
water exiting from the septic tanks is expected to be poor, and may undergo
septicity until it reaches the final 50 m of the network. Accordingly, this option
was excluded.
•
Treatment at Discharge Points using Conventional Methods—Another
approach is to treat the collected wastewater at the end of the network prior to
discharging to Damanhour el-Wahsh drain, using a conventional wastewater
treatment method. The most common conventional method in use in Egypt is the
activated sludge method or one of its variants.
The problem with this alternative is the extensive investment required, which
might not be available in this case. Furthermore, the need for trained and qualified
workers for the operation and maintenance of a conventional system might be
prohibitive in this rural setting. Accordingly, this option was considered
unsuitable.
•
Treatment at Discharge Points using Stabilization Ponds—The use of
stabilization ponds (or a variant, such as engineered wetlands) is another
approach. The advantage of this method is that it requires very little in terms of
labor or operation and maintenance. However, it requires large plots of land.
Being an agricultural governorate, with no surrounding desert, this approach does
not appear feasible for Gharbiya. This alternative was, therefore, discounted.
The following two approaches were viewed as the most applicable, and accordingly,
were studied in greater detail (including cost assessments).
•
Treatment at Discharge Points Using Septic Tanks—Most Egyptian villages
rely on on-site sanitation systems in the form of septic tanks. Properly operated
septic tanks can successfully achieve sewerage system objectives.
A septic tank is an watertight underground container designated for wastewater
treatment, where solid components settle in the bottom of the tank, separating
from the liquid. This process allows for a limited digestion (60 percent) of the
organic load contained in the wastewater. The process depends on the relatively
long retention time of wastewater in the septic tank that permits the settlement of
66
solids and the separation and flotation of oils and greases, and the formation of a
layer of scum.
Organic material retained in the bottom of the tank undergoes facultative and
anaerobic decomposition where it is converted to more stable compounds and
gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
The ambient air in the septic tank is generally anoxic, and sludge and scum layers
may be completely free of oxygen, where dissolved oxygen contained in the
influent is rapidly depleted by the bacteria, which also converts complex organic
material to volatile organic acids. 58
Despite the generation of hydrogen sulfide during the natural treatment process,
no offensive odors are generated, since hydrogen sulfide combines with the metals
in the accumulated solids to form insoluble metallic sulfides.
The remaining compounds (sludge) accumulate in the septic tank and are usually
dried and disposed of in landfills. Septic tanks are provided with openings on the
top to allow for cleaning and the removal of accumulated sludge, since prolonged
accumulation of scum and sludge can reduce the effective settling capacity of the
tank.
In this option, a series of septic tanks are proposed at the end of the collection
network, prior to discharge to the drain. The septic tanks would be constructed
under the natural ground level, and a water pump would carry wastewater from
the sewer level—about 2 m from the ground level—to the septic tank level, as
shown in figures 17 and 18. In the absence of a pump, septic tanks would be
constructed on a much lower foundation level, which would result in technical
particularities such as special excavation techniques and groundwater table related
problems.
The required land for the construction of septic tanks would have be provided by
the local community, and its cost is not taken into account in the current study.
If the septic tanks were designed to handle only the population currently
connected to the network, i.e. 60 percent of the population, then:
− Wastewater capacity of the septic tank: (7 × 3.5 × 1.3) × 2 = 63.7 m3
− Wastewater generated by the Sinbo population connected to the wastewater
connection network = 480 m3/day
− Number of septic tanks needed = 480/63.7 = 7.54, (a total of 8 tanks)
− The area that would accommodate these 8 tanks = (8 × 9) × 8 = 576 m2 =
576/175 = 3.29 kirat, taken 4 kirat (to account for the pump station).
58
Master’s Degree thesis submitted by Sri-Anant Wansen, “Upgrading Conventional Septic Tanks by Integrating In-tank
Baffles,” Asian Institute of Technology, School of Environment, Resources and Developmet. 2003.
Figure 17 Plan View and Cross Section of the Septic Tank
Figure 18 Cross Section of the Pumping Station
67
68
Table 15 shows the detailed overall estimated cost for the construction of eight septic
tanks to accommodate the wastewater generated by 60 percent of Sinbo’s population.
This cost is approximately L.E.421,000, including the cost of civil and mechanical
works, but excluding the cost of the land.
Table 15
Cost Estimate for Septic Tank Alternative to Serve 60 Percent of Sinbo
Population
Dimensions
(meters)
Item
Unit
Cost
(L.E.)
Total Cost
(L.E.)
SEPTIC TANK
Excavation
8
8.3
2.5
10
1660
P.C. Footing
8
8.3
0.2
150
1992
R.C. Footing
7.9
7.6
0.3
600
10807.2
R.C. Walls
R.C. Top Slab
7.9
1.8
0.3
700
2986.2
7.9
1.8
0.3
700
2986.2
7
1.8
0.3
700
2646
7
1.8
0.3
700
2646
7
1.8
0.3
700
2646
7.9
7.6
0.16
600
5763.84
-0.8
0.8
0.16
600
-61.44
-0.8
0.8
0.16
600
-61.44
Steel Cover (per unit)
2
1
1
200
400
Pipes
1
1
1
1500
1500
Total cost per tank
35910.56
Total cost per tank
including 10%
contingency
39501.61
Estimated number of septic
tanks
8
Total cost of septic tanks
316012.93
PUMPING STATION
π
r (m)
(h) m
Civil works
Excavation
3.14
2.1
5.6
50
P.C . Footing
3.14
2.1
0.2
180
498.50
R.C. Footing
3.14
1.9
0.4
700
3173.91
R.C. Walls
3.14
1.9
5
800
3.14
1.5
-5
800
3.14
1.9
0.2
700
1586.95
1.8
0.7
700
-176.4
R.C. Top Slab
-0.2
3877.27
45341.6
-28260
Dimensions
(meters)
Item
Steel Cover
1
1
Unit
Cost
(L.E.)
1
69
Total Cost
(L.E.)
500
500
Total cost of civil works
26541.84
Mechanical works
2 pumps
53295
Transportation
300
Accessories (pipes,
cables, etc.)
5000
Erection
10000
Total cost of mechanical
works
68595
Total cost of pumping
station
95136.846
Total cost of pumping
station including 10%
contingency
104650.53
Grand Total
420,663.46
If the septic tanks were designed to handle 100 percent of the population, i.e. the
population projected to be connected to the network in the future, then:
− Wastewater capacity of the septic tank is: (7 × 3.5 × 1.3) = 63.7 m3
− Wastewater generated by 100 percent of the Sinbo population = 800 m3/day
− Needed number of septic tanks = 800/63.7 = 12.56, or 13 tanks
− The area needed to accommodate these 13 tanks = (8 × 9) x 13 = 936 m2 =
936/175 = 5.35 kirat, taken 6 kirat (to account for the pump station).
Table 16 shows a detailed overall estimated cost for the construction of 13 septic
tanks to accommodate the wastewater generated by 100 percent of Sinbo’s
population. This cost is approximately L.E.616,000, including the cost of civil and
mechanical works, but excluding the cost of the land.
Table 16
Cost Estimate for Septic Tank Alternative to Serve 100 Percent of Sinbo’s
Population
Item
Dimensions
(meters)
Unit Cost Total Cost
(L.E.)
(L.E.)
SEPTIC TANK
Excavation
8
8.3
2.5
10
1660
P.C. Footing
8
8.3
0.2
150
1992
R.C. Footing
7.9
7.6
0.3
600
10807.2
70
R.C. Walls
R.C. Top Slab
7.9
1.8
0.3
700
2986.2
7.9
1.8
0.3
700
2986.2
7
1.8
0.3
700
2646
7
1.8
0.3
700
2646
7
1.8
0.3
700
2646
7.9
7.6
0.16
600
5763.84
-0.8
0.8
0.16
600
-61.44
-0.8
0.8
0.16
600
-61.44
Steel Cover (per unit)
2
1
1
200
400
Pipes
1
1
1
1500
1500
Total cost per tank
35910.56
Total cost per tank
including 10%
contingency
39501.61
Estimated number of septic
tanks
13
Total cost of septic tanks
513521.01
PUMPING STATION
π
r (m)
(h) m
Civil works
Excavation
3.14
2.1
5.6
50
3877.27
P.C . Footing
3.14
2.1
0.2
150
415.42
R.C. Footing
3.14
1.9
0.4
600
2720.49
R.C. Walls
3.14
1.9
5
700
39673.9
3.14
1.5
-5
700
-24727.5
3.14
1.9
0.2
600
1360.24
1.8
0.7
600
-151.2
1
1
500
500
R.C. Top Slab
-0.2
Steel Cover
1
23668.63
Mechanical works
2 pumps
Transportation
Accessories (pipes,
cables, etc.)
Erection
Total cost of mechanical works
53295
300
5000
10000
68595
Total cost of pumping station
92263.63
Total cost of pumping station including 10% contingency
101490
Grand Total
615011.01
•
71
Treatment at Discharge Point Using Package Units (DBAF)—The final option
under consideration was installation of a package treatment unit at the end of the
collection network, before discharge to the drain, using the DBAF system.
According to the technical information provided by the vendor of the DBAF
system (Weg & Envpro Company), the DBAF system is deemed to reach up to
95 percent removal efficiency of BOD, SS, TKN, and TP. It also minimizes the
need for effluent disinfection, and improves the sludge capability for dewatering
as well as its suitability as an organic fertilizer. The DBAF system has
successfully been implemented in five villages in Noubareya in addition to
Mubarak City for Education in 6th of October City. Figure 19 shows one of the
installations in Noubareya.
Figure 19
Adam Village, Noubareya
DBAF WWTP
A DBAF plant consists of the following components:
− Primary sedimentation tank
− Pumping unit
− Dual biological aerated tower filter
− Final sedimentation tank
− Contact chlorine tank
− Air pump
− Sludge tank
− Pressure sand filter.
The treatment’s efficiency is based on biological treatment. The effluent goes
through a primary sedimentation tank, then is pumped to the top of the DBAF
shaft where it is sprayed all along the shaft on an inner and outer bacterial
medium. A bacterial medium is also placed on the bottom of the shaft and
provides further bacterial treatment. The treated effluent is then conveyed to a
final sedimentation tank and ultimately treated in the chlorine contact tank. The
resulting treated effluent could be disposed of in a drain or reused for agricultural
purposes for specific crops. Figure 20 shows a cross section of a DBAF unit.
The Weg & Envpro Company was approached to provide technical and financial
proposals for a DBAF unit for Sinbo village, both to serve the population of
60 percent connected to the collection network and to serve 100 percent of the
population. The results of the technical and financial offers submitted are shown
below in table 17.
In the case of treatment for the Sinbo population currently connected to the
network, the required land = 6m × 9 m = 54 m2 = 0.31 kirat. Assuming unit height
of 6.2 m, the cost would be L.E.726,360.80.
72
Figure 20 Cross-section of a DBAF WWTP Unit
Table 17
Cost Estimate for DBAF Alternative to Serve 60 Percent of the Population
Item
Dimensions (meters)
Unit Cost
(L.E.)
Total Cost
(L.E.)
CIVIL WORKS
Excavation
9.4
6.4
2
10
1203.2
P.C. Footing
9.4
6.4
0.2
150
1804.8
R.C. Footing
9
6
0.3
600
9720
12728
DBAF COST
DBAF
415600
415600
Accessories
1
1
1
10000
10000
Erection
1
1
1
10000
10000
Total DBAF cost
435600
Total Civil & DBAF cost
448328
Total Civil & DBAF cost including 10% contingency
493160.8
In the case of treatment for 100 percent of the Sinbo population projected to connect
to the network in the future, the required land = 6m × 12m = 72 m2 = 0.42 kirat.
Estimated height of unit is 6.0 m. The estimated cost is shown in table 18.
Table 18
73
Cost Estimate for DBAF Alternative to Serve 100 Percent of the Population
Item
Unit Cost Total Cost
(L.E.)
(L.E.)
Dimensions (meters)
CIVIL WORKS
Excavation
12.4
6.4
2
10
1587.2-
P.C. Footing
12.4
6.4
0.2
150
2380.8
R.C. Footing
12
6
0.3
600
12960
16928
DBAF COST
DBAF
623400
623400
Accessories
1
1
1
10000
10000
Erection
1
1
1
10000
10000
Total DBAF cost
643400
Total Civil & DBAF cost
660328
Total Civil & DBAF cost including 10% contingency
726360.8
Evaluation of Wastewater Management Alternatives
The proposed alternatives for treatment of wastewater were evaluated qualitatively to
reach a subset of alternatives that were deemed most appropriate for the conditions at
hand. Each of the selected options was then evaluated using a multi-criteria analytic
framework to determine the best alternative.
Best Alternative Solution Selection Criteria
The following selection criteria were used in evaluating the proposed options:
•
Feasibility of implementation
•
Capital cost
•
Operation and maintenance cost
•
Labor requirements
•
Infrastructure requirements
•
Construction duration
•
Ability to utilize existing network
•
Environmental and socioeconomic impacts
•
Social acceptability.
Qualitative Evaluation of Alternatives
A qualitative comparison of all the options considered using the abovementioned
selection criteria was performed, as illustrated in table 19. Based on the qualitative
evaluation, and from the discussion presented in the previous section, the last two
options—septic tanks and package units (DBAF)—were identified as optimal.
74
Table 19
Comparative Evaluation of all Alternatives
Combined trenches &
collection network
system
Treatment at
discharge points using
conventional methods
Treatment at
discharge point using
stabilization ponds
Treatment at
septic tanks
Treatment at
package units (DBAF)
Feasibility of implementation
L
L
M
L-M
H
H
Capital cost
L
L
H
L
L-M
L-M
Operation and maintenance cost
L
L
H
L
L-M
L-M
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Separation of grey
and black wastewater
TECHNICAL ALTERNATIVES
Labor requirement
L
L
H
L
L
L-M
Infrastructure requirement
M
M
M
H
(land)
L
L-M
Construction duration
L
L
H
L
M
L-M
Ability to use existing network
L
M
H
H
H
H
Level of treatment
L-M
L
H
M-H
M
H
Social acceptability
L
L
H
L-M
H
H
Environmental impacts
M
L-M
L
M-H
M
L
Impact: (H: high, M: medium, L: low)
Cost/Benefit Analysis of Alternatives
Two alternative systems for the treatment of wastewater in Sinbo village are
recommended: the use of septic tanks and the use of DBAF units. Each of the systems
can be configured to respond either to the current number of network users (estimated
at 60 percent of the Sinbo population) or to the projected number of future users
(estimated at 100 percent of the Sinbo population).
Septic tanks and the DBAF unit provide a theoretical treatment of 60 and 95 percent
respectively, by taking BOD as the main indicator, the resulting treated wastewater
(considering sampling location 8, where BOD = 90 mg/l) would be in the order of
(100 – 60) × 90 /100 = 36 mg/l in the case of septic tanks, and (100 – 95) × 90/100 =
4.5 mg/l in the case of the DBAF unit. Accordingly, the septic tank would provide
secondary treatment for disposed water that would be suitable for the cultivation of
certain crops (see annex 7 for more details). Treated water from the DBAF unit
(considered as tertiary treatment) could either be discharged into waterways or used
for any agricultural purpose.
In order to perform an analysis of the recommended alternative (provided in table 20),
the following assumptions were made:
75
•
The number of people per household is estimated to be five
•
The local community would provide the land required for the execution of the
project (accordingly, its cost is not included in this financial analysis)
•
Two to three people are required for treatment plant operation (for all alternatives)
•
The average monthly salary required for each employee working in the treatment
plant is estimated at L.E. 300
•
Average monthly operating costs are based on information provided by the
equipment suppliers
•
Monthly operation costs would be paid by the local community through the
BCWUA or the consortium implementing the project
•
The treatment plant is not expected to generate income
•
The depreciation period for the septic tank system is estimated to be 25 years, and
that of the associated pumps at 10 years
•
The depreciation period of the DBAF unit is estimated at 12–15 years
•
A 10 percent contingency is considered in the calculation of the investment cost.
This addresses the fluctuation of currency exchange rates, as well as price
fluctuations that could occur between the design and implementation phases.
Selection of Best Alternative Solution
All four recommended systems are capable of achieving the targeted goal of treating
Sinbo’s wastewater. Nevertheless, there exist important variations in the level of
treatment of wastewater achieved, the initial and running costs of the treatment plant,
and the land that would be required for the plant. This financial analysis provides
guidance in the selection of the most suitable option in light of these criteria, as
highlighted below.
•
Level of Treatment and Initial Cost—Although the level of treatment is a
technical criterion, figure 20 demonstrates that the initial cost of alternatives 1 and
3 is almost the same; and that of alternatives 2 and 4 is also nearly the same.
However, the level of treatment that would be delivered by alternatives of similar
cost varies from 60–95 percent. The logical choice, therefore, would be the system
that—at a comparable cost—delivers the highest standards.
•
Running Cost—Figures 21 and 22 provide comparative cost analyses of the
monthly running costs, both exclusive and inclusive of depreciation cost. The
decision to replace the system when it reaches the decommissioning stage must be
taken by the local community, given that the local community pays the running
costs. The local community would be strongly advised to include the depreciation
cost in the monthly fee that is to be collected from households in order to ensure
the sustainability of the project.
76
Table 20
Cost/Benefit Analysis of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Description
Alternative 1
Septic Tanks
(60 percent of
population)
Level of Treatment (%)
Area Required to Install Equipment (kirat)
Initial Investment Costs (L.E.)
60.00
Alternative 2
Septic Tanks
(100 percent of
population)
60.00
Alternative 3
DBAF Unit
(60 percent of
population)
Alternative 4
DBAF Unit
(100 percent of
population)
95.00
95.00
0.31
0.42
4
6
420,663
615,011
493,161
726,361
1,000
1,000
1,250
1,250
2
2
3
3
600
600
900
900
1,600
1,600
2,150
2,150
60
100
60
100
10,200
17,000
10,200
17,000
RUNNING COSTS
Technical Operation & Maintenance Costs (Monthly) (L.E.)
Number of Laborers
Total Labor Costs (L.E.)
Total Monthly Running Costs (L.E.)
COSTS TO POPULATION EXCLUDING DEPRECIATION
Percentage of Population Benefiting from Alternative
Population Benefiting from Alternative
Initial Costs Per Person (L.E.)
41.24
36.18
48.35
42.73
Monthly (Running) Costs Per Person (L.E.)
0.16
0.09
0.21
0.13
Monthly (Running) Costs Per Household (based on 5 person per
house) (L.E.)
0.78
0.47
1.05
0.63
COSTS TO POPULATION INCLUDING DEPRECIATION
Depreciation period of system (years)
Depreciation period of separate components if any (pumps) (years)
Cost of separate components (pumps) to be depreciated (L.E.)
25
12
25
12
10
Same as DBAF
10
Same as DBAF
58,624.50
Same as DBAF
58,624.50
Same as DBAF
77
Alternative 1
Septic Tanks
(60 percent of
population)
Alternative 2
Septic Tanks
(100 percent of
population)
Alternative 3
DBAF Unit
(60 percent of
population)
Alternative 4
DBAF Unit
(100 percent of
population)
5,862.45
Same as DBAF
5,862.45
Same as DBAF
362,038.50
615,011.00
487,298.35
726,360.80
Depreciation of main units (other than pumps) (L.E./ year)
14,481.54
51,250.92
19,491.93
60,530.07
Total Depreciation (L.E./year)
Description
Depreciation of separate components (pumps) (L.E./ year)
Cost of main units (other than pumps) (L.E.)
20,343.99
51,250.92
25,354.38
60,530.07
Monthly Depreciation Cost Per Person (L.E.)
0.10
0.25
0.12
0.30
Total Running Cost & Depreciation Fee Per Person (L.E.)
0.26
0.35
0.34
0.42
Total monthly running cost & depreciation fee per household (5
capita/ house) (L.E.)
1.62
1.73
2.09
2.12
78
Figure 21 Comparison Based on Initial Cost and Level of Treatment
95% treatment
726,361
800,000
60 % treatment
700,000
Initial Cost (L.E.)
600,000
500,000
95% treatment
615,011
60% treatment
493,161
420,663
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
A1: Septic Tanks A2: Septic Tanks
60%
100%
A3: DBAF Unit
60%
A4: DBAF Unit
100%
Project Alternatives
Figure 22 Monthly Running Cost Per Household, Excluding Depreciation (L.E.)
1.20
1.05
Monthly fee (L.E.)
1.00
0.80
0.78
0.63
0.60
0.47
0.40
0.20
0.00
A1: Septic Tanks 60%
A2: Septic Tanks
100%
A3: DBAF Unit 60%
A4: DBAF Unit 100%
Alternatives
In the case where depreciation cost is excluded, alternative 4 appears to be the
best option although it comes second after alternative 1 (0.63
L.E./month/household as apposed to 0.47 L.E./month/household). But the benefits
of alternative 4 in terms of level of treatment and needed land undoubtedly
outweigh this minor difference in cost, especially because this per-household fee
is believed to be affordable. Running costs for project alternatives 1 and 3 (that
target only 60 percent of the population) are higher than that of alternatives 2 and
4 (that target the entire population). While there is no significant variation in
79
facility operation and maintenance costs between alternatives, the number of
households that contribute to costs varies significantly. Accordingly, 60 percent of
the population will have to pay a higher fee for services than 100 percent would,
as shown in figure 23.
Figure 23 Monthly Running Cost Per Household Including Depreciation (L.E.)
Total monthly fee (L.E.)
2.50
2.00
1.62
2.09
2.12
A3: DBAF Unit 60%
A4: DBAF Unit 100%
1.73
1.50
1.00
0.50
Alternatives
When cost of depreciation is taken into account, alternative 4 appears to have the
highest cost. It is, nevertheless, still believed to be affordable, particularly in light
of the beneficial outcomes expected.
•
Land Required for the Execution of the Project—The local community will
provide land necessary for execution of the project (provided that the community
is given assistance with the necessary permits, particularly from the MWRI).
Accordingly, the cost of the land is not included in this feasibility study. However,
since Sinbo is an agricultural village where agricultural land is strictly protected
by national laws prohibiting its use for other purposes, the smaller the required
land area, the more likely it will be that the project will materialize. The required
permits and paperwork for a large area of land are complicated, and the granting
of a permit could take up to 2 years. With a smaller area of land, likely to be less
than one kirat, the reduced bureaucratic process required would fall within a
reasonable timeframe. 59 Figure 24 provides an illustrative comparison of the
required land areas for the respective project alternatives.
This figure demonstrates that project alternatives 3 and 4 require the least land
(0.31 and 0.42 kirat respectively) as opposed to alternatives 1 and 2, which require
a land area 12–20 times greater than alternatives 3 and 4 respectively, with similar
initial costs and improved levels of treatment.
59
One kirat ≈ 175 m2
80
Figure 24 Comparison of Alternatives Based on Land Requirements (in kirats)
7
Area Required (Kirat)
6
6
5
4
4
3
2
1
0.31
0.42
A3: DBAF Unit 60%
A4: DBAF Unit 100%
0
A2: Septic Tanks
100%
Project Alternatives
Recommended Alternative for Wastewater Management
Based on the above analyses, alternative 4 is recommended as the most suitable:
1. It has the highest level of treatment (95 percent) compared to the other alternatives
(except for alternative 3)
2. The area required is much smaller (except for alternative 3)
3. It benefits 100 percent of the population (as in alternative 2)
4. It entails the lowest initial cost per person, considering that 100 percent of the
population benefits from this alternative, whereas other alternatives either serve
only 60 percent of the population (alternatives 1 and 3) or have a higher cost per
person (alternative 3)
5. While the monthly cost per person and per household is not the lowest (when the
depreciation cost is considered), it is nevertheless believed to be affordable.
7.
81
Water Quality Monitoring Plan
In order to measure achievements against objectives for Task 5, it is vital to undertake
pre- and post-intervention monitoring of water quality for both the canal and the drain
in the selected pilot project area. Monitoring will also provide valuable information
on the potential for project replication.
Monitoring Point Selection Criteria
Ten locations were selected for monitoring the water quality at Sinbo Canal and
Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain (6 points on the canal, and 4 on the drain). Water was
monitored at the inlets and outlets of both the canal and the drain, as well as at
locations of physical changes in the flow such as the passage from an open channel to
a water pipe in covered areas or vice versa.
Monitoring water quality at one of the water hand pumps was suggested, but was later
abandoned since the management of groundwater does not fall within the scope of the
current study.
Measurement of Water Quality Indicators
The following physical, biological, and chemical indicators are to be used for water
quality monitoring purposes:
1. Temperature
2. Light Transparency
3. Electric Conductivity
4. pH
5. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
6. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
7. Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
8. NH4
9. NO2
10. NO3
11. Sulfides (SO2)
12. Coliform count
82
13. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). 60
Assessment of Results
The results of the water quality assessment are to be examined utilizing the criteria set
by the relevant Egyptian environmental laws for both discharge of water in waterways
and reuse of wastewater, if desired. These criteria are particularly important for the
case of Damanhour el-Wahsh drain, which has been transformed into a wastewater
dump.
With respect to the discharge of wastewater into waterways, while Article 5 of Law
No. 48/1982 and its executive regulations prohibit the discharge of wastewater into
waterways (including all sorts of drains), treated wastewater can be discharged to
waterways subject to the payment of a fee and the fulfillment of the criteria shown in
annex 8.
Reuse of treated wastewater for agricultural purposes, the criteria of water quality,
type of crop, irrigation method, and type of soil, are set in Article 15 of Decree No 44/
2000, pertaining to Law No. 93/1962 for the discharge of wastewater. Allowable
limits for the reuse of treated wastewater and criteria for the use of treated wastewater
for agricultural purposes are shown in annex 8.
Pollution of Concerned Waterways
It is anticipated that along with the wastewater discharged by the Sinbo network,
another network, currently under construction in the village of Damanhour el-Wahsh,
is soon to add to the drain’s load. Furthermore, the new community-funded dialysis
unit of the El-Takamol el-Sehi hospital also discharges its untreated wastewater to the
same drain at a distance of 0.50 km from the Sinbo village sewer. The hospital is
provided with a septic tank, emptied randomly and informally and a small incinerator
for the safe disposal of the hazardous solid waste generated by the hospital’s
activities.
Water samples were taken both from the Sinbo Canal and from the Damanhour elWahsh drain. Figure 25 shows a schematic of the sampling locations, while table 21
lists the geographic information for the sampling points.
Analysis results are shown in annex 9. Samples collected from the Sinbo Canal seem
to be in accordance with the law, and they do not exhibit any exceptionally high
values in any of the indicator parameters.
60
A major indicator of water quality, particularly that susceptible to carrying a high organic load (such as water in Damanhour
el-Wahsh drain). The BOD is the amount of oxygen required by bacteria for the process of aerobically decomposing organic
matter. Accordingly, the higher the BOD, the lower the water quality.
83
The case is different, however, for samples collected from the drain. For example,
sampling location 8, closest to the discharge point of the Sinbo wastewater collection
network, has an exceptionally high total coliform count, on the order of 100,000 cells
per 100 ml, indicative of heavy human waste pollution of the drain. The total
suspended solids and the BOD are also high, and violate Law 48/1982. This condition
should be rectified by treating the effluent prior to discharging to the drain.
Figure 25
Location of Water Sampling Stations 61
F
6
E
J
B
1
2
MAP KEY
Sampling points (1 to 10)
7
D
3
8
A
C
4
9
A
Sinbo Canal
B
Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain
C
Sinbo Drain
D
El-Atf Drain
E
Road
F
El-Khadraweya Canal
G
Sinbo Village
H
Kafr Ismail Village
J
Damanhour el-Wahsh Village
H
G
5
10
Table 21
GIS Information of Selected Monitoring Points
Geographic Information
Point
1
2
61
Location
North
East
30o 40’ 0.849’’
31o 11’ 0.218’’
o
30 40’ 0.647’’
o
31 11’ 0.264’’
Generla Survey Authority, East Tanta map., scale 1: 100,000
End of Canal
Up-stream covered area (Kafr
Shamara)
84
Geographic Information
Point
Location
North
East
3
30o 40’ 0.107’’
31o 11’ 0.668’’
Down-stream covered area (Kafr
Shamara)
4
30o 38’ 0.862’’
31o 12’ 0.740’’
Sinbo Youth Center
o
o
5
30 38’ 0.260’’
31 12’ 0.923’’
Sinbo Canal intake
6
30o 39’ 0.359’’
31o 12’ 0.557’’
End of drain
7
8
9
10
o
30 39’ 0.130’’
o
30 38’ 0.728’’
o
30 40’ 0.849’’
o
30 38’ 0.338’’
o
Drain
o
Drain—sewer discharge
o
Drain
o
Sinbo Canal
31 12’ 0.596’’
31 12’ 0.617’’
30 40’ 0.849’’
31 12’ 0.387’’
8.
85
Conclusion
This report presents a summary of progress for Task 5 of the LIFE/IWRM Project. An
assessment of existing conditions was carried out, and a number of alternative
interventions were presented to address problems in the Sinbo area related to both
solid waste management and wastewater disposal/reuse.
Solid Waste Management
The third alternative proposed for waste collection and transportation, which entails
mule-drawn carts for collecting waste on to a preset schedule appears to be more
favorable financially, entailing lower investment and running costs, and higher profit
margins and return on investment. The second alternative, however, which entails
establishing box trailers in appropriate locations in the pilot area that are regularly
emptied and replaced, is technically more favorable, and potentially more likely to
gain community acceptance.
For agricultural waste, it was determined that any option must necessarily involve the
reuse of this waste, rather than simply disposing of it. Three alternative options were
developed:
1. Farmers processing agricultural waste on their own farms to produce silage and
compost, with the option of using rented processing equipment from the
consortium
2. Farmers and the consortium forming a partnership based on profit-sharing, with
the farmers processing the waste, and the consortium providing the equipment free
of charge and taking responsibility for marketing the processed waste
3. The consortium taking on the responsibility for agricultural waste, which would
be transported to a sorting center, where it would be processed into silage and
compost.
The financial analysis and an assessment of practicality showed that the first option
was the most feasible.
Wastewater Management
Any sanitation system must address wastewater collection, treatment, and final
disposal. Since Sinbo village already has a wastewater network installed, any optimal
alternative must treat the collected/transmitted wastewater at the exit point, before its
86
discharge to the Damanhour el-Wahsh Drain. The alternatives considered for detailed
evaluation all included treating the wastewater, using conventional methods, septic
tank systems, or packaged units.
Based on the analysis, the conventional treatment alternative was discarded, due to the
requirement for substantial investment, along with the need for highly trained labor to
operate and maintain the system.
Although the use of stabilization ponds (or a variant such as constructed wetlands)
requires very little in terms of labor and training, it does require an extensive amount
of land, which is not available in this case.
This left two other alternatives to evaluate: septic tanks and the DBAF technology
package unit. Based on the multi-criteria evaluation and economic assessment, the
DBAF technology seemed to be the best, especially as it delivers a higher level of
treatment, requires little land, and at a cost about the same as septic tanks.
Accordingly, this report recommends the DBAF system as the preferred solution.
Overall Recommendations
It is highly recommended that an awareness raising campaign be implemented in
parallel with pilot project implementation. In preparation for the local community’s
role in selecting the most suitable solutions, key decision makers are already aware of
alternatives on a conceptual basis. However, in order to maintain momentum,
awareness raising efforts must continue throughout the pilot lifetime. It is
recommended that a more aggressive approach is taken during the initial phases of the
pilot, which could then taper off into ‘refresher’ awareness activities once the systems
for solid waste and wastewater management are already in place and operational.
Next Steps
Alternatives were discussed with the Sinbo community during a workshop held in
Sinbo on 14 March 2005. Community members requested some time to discuss the
alternatives amongst themselves. Subsequently, attendees were expected to come up
with a semi-final decision during this closed meeting, and the final decision would be
discussed with the larger community on 28 March 2005.
The 28 March meeting was, however, cancelled by the MWRI/IRG team.
Accordingly, the next step would be a consultation with stakeholders on selected solid
waste and wastewater alternatives that are to be implemented, and initiating
implementation processes according to a schedule that is to be agreed upon by the
parties concerned.
87
References
1. Ali, B.E., Bio-energy from Organic Residues for Rural Egypt, Ph.D. Faculty
of Agriculture, Ain Shams University.
2. Assignment of a Financial Cost to Pollution from Sanitation Systems, with
Particular Reference to Gauteng - Report No 631/1/01
http://www.fwr.org/wrcsa/631101.htm
(FWR - An independent, not for profit organization, having charitable status,
that shares and disseminates knowledge about water, wastewater and research
into related environmental issues)
3. Cedare, 2000. Policy and Institutional Assessment of Solid Waste
Management in Five Countries: Cyprus, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia.
4. Country profile on environment Egypt, planning and evaluation department
Japan international cooperation agency, February 2002,
5. DBAF manual (Dual Biological Aerated Filter) – Sewage Treatment Plant –
WEG & ENVPRO Company.
6. Decentralized Systems, Technology Fact Sheet, Septic Tank - Soil Absorption
Systems. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Washington, D.C. EPA 932-F-99-075, September 1999.
7. Decentralized Wastewater Management, Antoine Morel (EAWAG/SANDEC),
Thammarat Koottatep (AIT/SERD)
http://www.sandec.ch/Wastewater/Documents/IP3_DEWATS.pdf
8. DEWATS (Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems), SANDEC (Water
& Sanitation in Developing Countries).
http://www.sandec.ch/Wastewater/Documents/DEWATS.pdf
9. Dorrah, Hassen Taher & El Zonfely, Helmy, 2004. Management of Solid
Wastes for Integrated Water Management Districts and General Directorates.
10. Eco Conserv Environmental Solutions, 2003. National Research Center
Project of Recycling of Agricultural Wastes at Abo Homos and Eta El Barood.
Social Fund for Development. Second Output. Findings Survey. Items of
Updating the Proposed Project.
88
11. El Sayed Aly, Bahgat. Organic fertilizer – Requirements and availability.
Agricultural Research Center (in Arabic).
12. Environmental Quality International, 2004. Re-integration of the Zabbaleen
into modern solid waste management systems, GTZ.
13. Environmental Quality International, 2001. Towards Integrated Municipal
Solid Waste Management in Egypt: Strategic Plan and Pilot Project in the
Oasis of Siwa, Ford Foundation.
14. Environmental Quality International, 1987. Zabaleen Environment and
Development Program (Moqattam composting plant), Ford Foundation.
15. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) web site:
http://www.epa.gov/seahome/septics/src/page3.htm
Principles of Septic Systems
16. Groundwater, latrines and Health, Task No: 163, Ben Cave and Pete Kolsky,
July 1999, Task Management and Quality Assurance: Pete Kolsky, London
School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, UK, WEDC, Loughborough
University, UK.
17. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2001. Public Participation
in Decision-making.
18. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2004. Information Systems
for Integrated Water Management Districts.
19. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2004. A Performance
Monitoring and Evaluation System for Integrated Water Management
Districts.
20. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2004. Stakeholder
Participation Activity in Integrated Water Management Districts.
21. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2004. Training Evaluation
for Integrated Water Management Districts.
22. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2004. Water Monitoring
System for Integrated Water Management Districts.
23. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2004. Report of the
Stakeholder Participation Activity for the Integrated Waster Resources
Management Districts. Appendix B. Process Documentation for established
BCWUAs.
24. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2002. District
Consolidation Activity in Integrated Water Management Districts.
89
25. International Resources Group and Partners (IRG), 2004. Final Report
(incorporating Quarterly Report No. 4 for the period July–September 2004).
26. Khaled Abu-Zeid. The World Summit for Sustainable Development & Beyond
Egypt & the World Water Goals, CEDARE
27. Mechanized Agriculture Stations Sector, Ministry of Agriculture
28. Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency, 1997. The Ten-Year Plan for Environmental Protection. Part 1: Solid
Waste Management Control Projects (in Arabic).
29. Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs, Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency, Innovative Approach to Municipal Wastewater Management: The
Egyptian Experience, By Dr. Mamdouh Riad, Minister of State for
Environmental Affairs, March 2004.
30. Ministry of State for Environment. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
(Directorate General for Wastes), 2000.The National Strategy for Integrated
Municipal Solid Waste Management – A framework for Action.
31. Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation. Economic Affairs Sector,
2003. Solid Waste Management Strategy, Dakahlia Governorate. Agricultural
Statistics. Volume 1.
32. Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities, National center for
Housing and Building Research, 1999. Egyptian Code for Design and
Implementation of Sanitary Installations for Buildings (in Arabic).
Implementation of Sanitary Pipes for Potable and Waste Water (in Arabic).
Implementation of Potable and Waste Water Treatment Plants and Pumping
Stations (in Arabic).
35. Ministry of State for Environment. Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency,
Environment Law No. 4 for the year 1994, and its Executive Regulations (in
Arabic).
36. Ministry of Industry and Mineral Resources, 1999. Law No. 12 for the year
1984 for Drainage and Irrigation, and its Executive Regulations (in Arabic).
37. Ministry of Industry and Technological Development, 2001. Law No. 48 for
the year 1982 and Law No. 93 for the year 1962 and Law No. 57 for the year
1978 (in Arabic).
90
38. National Center of Competence in Research North South, Upgrading
Conventional Septic Tanks by Integrating in-tank Baffles. Thesis submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering,
Sri-Anant Wanasen 2003, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT). School of
Environment, Re-sources and Development (SERD).
39. Report No. 31993- EG, Arab Republic of Egypt, Country Environmental
Analysis, (1992.2002), , Water, Environment, Social and Rural Development
Department, The Middle East and North Africa Region, Document of the
World Bank, April 2005.
40. Samir Ahmed Shimy & Bahgat El Sayed Aly, 1997. Regional Seminar for
making use of Agricultural waste. League of Arab States. Arab Organization
for Agricultural Development. Khartoum 13-15/10/1997. (in Arabic).
41. The Needs to Village Sanitation Development, in Beni Suef – Egypt. Anwar
Mohamed Manaf. Regional Water and Sanitation Project (RWSP) financed by
FNIDA
42. UNEP - Global Environment Outlook - 1 (Global state of the environment
report 1997) http://www.grida.no/geo2000/ov-e.pdf
43. UNDP – Millennium project http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/facts/index.htm
44. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, Principles of
Depreciation: An Introduction to Depreciation Concepts used in Public Utility
Ratemaking. Prepared for: The Kyrgyz Republic SEA, Mr. Thomas Spinks,
Regulatory Consultant, September 2004.
45. Well (Water and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough) Study.
Terms of Reference for
Consulting Services in the Life IWRM
EQI Consultant Team, Local Technical Assistance to Support Task #5 Environmental
Services for Improving Water Quality Management
Background:
International Resource Group (IRG) under the USAID/Egypt funded Livelihood and Income
from the Environment (LIFE) Integrated Water Resources Management Project (Contract No.
EPP-I-802-03-00013-00 Task Order 802) is responsible for assisting the Government of
Egypt (GOE) to promote integrated water resources management. The period of performance
is October 1, 2004-September 30, 2008.
The objective of this Task Order is to provide technical assistance, training, commodities, and
small grants in support of the decentralization of water management decision-making and an
increased participation of all rural inhabitants in such decision-making in two priority
geographical areas and four Irrigation Directorates; Zifta and West Sharkiya in the Middle
Delta, and Qena and Aswan in Upper Egypt. With decentralization and participation, USAID
expects greater civic responsibility in maintaining the water conveyance infrastructure and
improvements in the quality of local water resources through better management of locally
generated liquid and solid wastes. The objectives will be achieved through the formation and
development of functional and sustainable Branch Canal Water User Associations
(BCWUAs) and Integrated Water Management Districts (IWMDs) and developing the
capacity of stakeholders to manage solid and liquid wastes in the targeted directorates.
Seven tasks will be implemented under the LIFE/IWRM Program:
1. Formation of Integrated Water Management Districts
2. Formation of Branch Canal Water Users' Associations
3. Equitable Allocation of Water Resources
4. Improved Maintenance and Upgrading of Water Management Equipment
5. Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality Management
6. Improved Wastewater Reuse Practices
7. Graduate Degree Training for MWRI Staff
There are also a number of issues that are common to all the tasks. These crosscutting issues
include commodity purchases; workshops and training; monitoring and evaluation; donor
coordination; public awareness, information, education, and communications; and gender.
The extent of the problem of solid and liquid wastes and their adverse affect on the water
quality of irrigation, drainage, and groundwater systems in the four target Directorates is well
documented. LIFE/IWRM will implement a pilot activity to address this problem. This will
be done using guidelines established under the MWRI policy for stakeholder participation in
decision-making and will include the following steps:
• Stakeholder Mobilization
• Data Collection and Problem Definition
• Assessment of Alternative Methods for Liquid and Solid Waste Management
• Formation of Management Consortia
• Assist In Implementation of Identified and Funded Interventions
• Training and Awareness Raising
1
Initially one target branch canal in an existing IWMD where a BCWUA has already been
established will be selected. Based on the success of the initial pilot, the program will be
extended to a second pilot area as agreed upon with the MWRI and USAID.
Scope and Tasks
The objective of this assignment is to provide short-term technical assistance to support the
implementation of Task # 5 Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality
Management. A consultant team will work with the LIFE IWMP TA Team, USAID, IWMU,
and involved stakeholders to prepare plans, develop alternatives and implement water quality
management pilot. Specifically the Consultant team will:
1. Assist in identifying a pilot project area.
2. Conduct survey of pilot area to establish trends in solid and liquid waste disposal/reuse behavior.
3. Analyze existing solid and liquid waste disposal practices in Egypt and assess
alternative disposal/re-use methods and select the most low cost and non-conventional
3-5 alternatives with recommendations for presentation to the stockholder’s consortia.
4. Implement all activities in accordance with guidelines established under the MWRI
policy for stakeholder participation in decision-making (EPIQ Report # 50, Public
Participation in Decision-Making, Dec. 2001).
5. Assist LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU in monitoring water quality in the pilot
project area.
6. Collaborate closely with LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU and WCU in developing
and implementing a public awareness, communication, and education program for the
pilot.
7. Work closely with LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU in establishing stakeholder
consortia that includes representatives from MWRI, BCWUA, NGO, local council,
and other interested parties. Identify roles and responsibilities of each group.
8. Collaborate closely with LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU to conduct stakeholder
(including women) focus group meetings to introduce the project and to enhance
approval and support of project activities.
9. Develop tracking/monitoring system to determine qualitative solid waste quantities
over time to track waste reductions to include a baseline survey.
10. Develop tracking/monitoring procedures to evaluate effectiveness of a liquid waste
pilot.
11. Provide TA to respond to requests for supplemental funding from alternative sources
such as Japanese Embassy, GEF/Sgp, etc. to include preparation of proposals.
12. Collaborate with LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU in organizing stakeholder
workshops to introduce alternatives and obtain feed back from the stakeholders.
13. Work closely with LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU and relevant stakeholders in
selecting appropriate interventions.
14. Take technical responsibility and supervise implementation for all approved and
funded interventions.
15. Collaborate with LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU in training stakeholders on pilot
interventions and O&M requirements.
16. Collaborate with LIFE IWRM and MWRI IWMU in assisting stakeholders in
implementing necessary cost sharing or O&M financing plan.
17. Brief and make presentations to the USAID Technical Officers, MWRI
officials Steering and other stakeholders on behalf of LIFE/IWRM Program.
2
Deliverables
1. Pilot area survey on trends in solid and liquid waste disposal/re-use behavior.
2. A water quality-monitoring plan for the pilot area.
3. An analysis of existing solid and liquid waste disposal practices and assessment of
alternative disposal/re-use methods.
4. A feasibility plan describing alternatives and interventions with recommendations fro
implementation for the pilot project that includes costs, economic and financial
feasibility of alternatives, O&M requirements, identifies institutional constraints and
requirements, etc.
5. Stakeholder mapping plan
6. Technical input to all proposals in response to requests for supplemental funding from
alternative sources such as Japanese Embassy, GEF/Sgp, etc.
7. Process documentation of all stakeholder meeting, focus, and training activities.
8. Approved completion report for all funded interventions that includes cost recovery
and financing plan, O&M plan, staffing plan, institutional requirements, and followup support requirements.
9. An approved tracking system to determine qualitative solid waste quantities over time
to track waste reductions.
10. An approved tracking/monitoring system to evaluate effectiveness of a liquid waste
pilot.
11. Training and awareness modules required to support the SOW.
12. Input for the work plans and Progress Reports
13. Input for the M&E, training, and procurement plans.
14. Weekly activity schedule.
15. Trip reports in memo format describing activities carried out during each field
trip including places visited, persons met, and record of discussions with key
individuals and/or key meetings/communications.
16. Electronic versions of any presentation handouts or training material prepared
during the assignment period.
17. Final report presenting work done, lessons learned, and recommendations for
replication.
3
Terms and Conditions
1. This work should be completed by 31 August 2006.
2. The Consultant team, represented by Dr. Mostafa Saleh will report to the Life IWRM
Chief of Party, designated under this TO as Dr. Jeffrey Fredericks.
3. The Consultant team will be paid by IRG after the COP is satisfied with the quality of
the work.
4. The Consultant Team Leader or designated representative will meet with COP,MWRI
IWMU representative, and other LIFE IWRM team members weekly to coordinate
the work program.
5. All field activities will be organized and coordinated in advance to allow MWRI and
LIFE IWRM staff participation as required.
6. The COP reserves the right to ask questions about the team’s work, and to request the
consultant(s) to make presentations to chosen audiences.
7. Complete copies of all reports (including Arabic documents, figures and annexes) will
be delivered in electronic format, MSWord and/or MSExcel. The Consultant team’s
written report(s) must conform to USAID and IRG report standards.
4
Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality Management
Trip Report
Visit Date:
Tuesday 30th of November 2004
Place visited: Zefta Directorate
Participants:
EQI:
MWRI:
Dr. Mostafa Saleh
Mr. Abd Allah El Etribi
Eng. Samiha Ghabbour
Mrs. Sheryl Groff
Eng. Hesham
Objective
Reconnaissance visit to help selecting the pilot project’s location, boundaries, level of
intervention, and stakeholders.
The trip
The trip consisted on two parts;
- Meeting with Eng. Fikry Aly El Tawab, Zefta Water Directorate Manager, and
other Zefta MWRI officials
- Field visits.
Meeting with Eng. Fikry A. El Tawab, District Director South Zefta
• Eng. Fikry briefed attendees about solid waste and wastewater problems in South
Zefta District, where in the absence of appropriate sanitation and solid waste
management facilities, villagers get rid of all sorts of waste in waterways, as they
consider water will carry the dumped waste away from their sight. Zefta being in the
upstream of the Abbassi main canal (El Rayah El Abbassi) that provides water to
three governorates, dumping solid and liquid waste in its upstream is problematic.
• The MWRI hence initiated the formation of Water Users Associations to assist the
MWRI in the management of its water resources. The role of these association is to
raise the awareness of branch canals users about the detrimental impacts of polluted
water ways, and also to help MWRI make “persistent polluter” pay.
• Within South Zefta District, 28 Branch Canal Water User Association (BCWUA) had
recently been formed over the last 3-4 months, but most of them are not ready yet to
performing their tasks autonomously and are working under the umbrella of the
MWRI. Eng. Fikry will then be nominating two of the most active BCWUAs to
implement the pilot project.
• According to Eng. Fikry, the district is not served by a landfill, the only existing
landfill is in Markaz Zefta. With respect to wastewater, a low cost Japanese project
that consisted on adding a certain substance (probably bacteria) to trenches, had
already been implemented in 5 villages within Zefta, but results of the effluent’s
analysis do not seem to be promising.
• According to Eng. Fikry, the Bazenganeya and Bahr Abou Zahra branch canals are
the worst canals in terms of solid waste dumping, whereas the MWRI decided to
cover these two branch canals, but villagers are still using the old location of the open
chanel as a dumpsite.
Field visits
Field visits were guided by Eng. Manal Michel and Eng. Khaled,
El Bazenganeya Branch Canal– Kafr Kala Elbab
Beginning of the covered chanel (North: 30o41’30” – East: 31o00’04”)
The Bazenganeya is partially covered, it suffers from waste accumulation problems. The
MWRI clears it each 2 months, were the accumulated waste is left to dry and is
ultimately burnt. This canal is in the upstream of the Bahr Abou Zahra canal.
Bahr Abou Zahra Branch Canal– Kafr Kala Elbab – Markaz Al Santa (North: 30o40’01”
– East: 31o08’65”)
This branch canal Partially covered, and the covering of other parts is underway. It also
suffers from waste accumulation problems. The local community was met, and vented
their concerns about solid waste, whereas the dumpsite within Al Santa they used to have
is not in use anymore, and they are not allowed to use that of Markaz Zefta. The local
community is both willing to pay for the collection of solid waste, and is willing to
collect it privately, but the local council has to provide the dumpsite.
Al Kourama – Markaz Al Santa (North: 30o40’37” – East: 31o07’97”)
More or less idem previous branch canals.
Senbo Branch Canal (North: 30o40’120” – East: 31o11’67”)
Despite the accumulated solid waste, according to Eng. Manal, and Eng. Khaled,
dumping of solid waste in the waterway has substantially been reduced further to
awareness campaigns conducted by the BCWUA, were waste is thought to be locally
burnt by villagers.
Conclusion of the visit
9 Further visits will be arranged to decide on the selected branch canal, and its
corresponding BCWUA for the implementation of the pilot project.
Trip Report
Visit Date:
Wednesday 22nd of December 2004
Place visited: Zefta Directorate
Participants:
EQI:
MWRI:
Eng. Peter Nasr
Eng. Manal Michel
Eng. Mohamed Hamed
Eng. Khaled Haroun (Water users associationss coordinator, Zefta)
Eng. Mohamed (MWRI, Zagazig Directorate)
Objective
The objective of this visit was to select - according to pre-set criteria - an appropriate
branch canal and a drain for the implementation of the pilot project that is to be carried
out in Zefta Directorate. The main criteria are:
- The branch canal is serving a maximum of three villages.
- The existing of an active water users associations in the pilot area.
- Investigating potential allocation of land for solid and liquid waste management.
The trip
The trip consisted on two parts; a meeting with Eng. Fikry Aly El Tawab, Zefta Water
Directorate Manager, and other Zefta MWRI officials, and field visits.
Meeting with Eng. Fikry A. El Tawab
• In this meeting, a discussion was conducted with respect to the selection of the
pilot branch canal for the pilot project according to the set criteria. Selection
criteria were discussed particularly with respect to the possibility of allocating a
vacant land that could be used as a recycling site or a dumping area. In this regard,
the Taalaba canal was suggested by Eng, Fikry as a nearby government land could
be acquired and allocated for the recycling or dumping or solid waste.
• The issue of waste disposal being a concern in main canals rather than branch
canals was raised, no water users associationss however are dealing with these
canals. Nevertheless, branch canals like Al Bazenganeya, and Senbo are suffering
from huge waste problems, and water users associationss had already been formed
and are active in the areas served by these two branch canals.
• Eng. Fikry also mentioned that in El Garbia drain, sanitary and industrial
wastewater are discharged into the branch drains which are ultimately discharged
into El Garbia drain, and leads to an exceeded water volume in the drain.
Accordingly, additional water volumes of the Gharbeia drain are discharged in El
Abbasi Main Canal. This added water volume represents 1/12 of the Abbasi Main
Canal flow.
• Further to the meeting, three branch canals were selected as potential pilot branch
canals, and further studies and field visits were hence sought necessary. These
three selected branch canals are: El Taalaba, Senbo and Swellam Branch Canals. It
was agreed that the team would visit the three canals to decide on the most
appropriate one.
• The issue of water quality tests was also discussed. Eng. Fikry informed that
Salinity, Dissolved Oxygen, Electric Conductivity, temperature and pH are
measured periodically by MWRI labs in Tanta and that they have so far three
complete sets of records of these measurements. There are 28 testing points where
water samples are taken.
Field visits
Field visits were guided by Eng. Manal and Eng. Khaled, and encompassed the selected
branch canals and other sites.
El Taalaba Branch Canal
This branch canal suffers from waste accumulation problems. A nearby land could be
acquired as a dumping area in El Abbasi canal area. Yet, when visited, El Taalaba canal
was found out to be in a highly populated urban location. Thus, out of scope and was
discarded from the selection.
Senbo Branch Canal
According to Eng. Manal and Eng. Khaled, Senbo branch canal is 6.7 km long and
irrigates about 2000 feddan. It covers 3 villages (10,000 citizen) that are Senbo,
Damanhour El Wahsh, and Kafr Shamara, all of which are suffering from severe waste
problems. Water users assiciations of Senbo branch canal are already well established.
Towards the end of Senbo Branch Canal, there is El Atf main drain (far from the urban
area). It was strangely noted that the water quality of the main drain is in better condition
than that of the surrounding branch canals. This is mainly attributed to fewer inhabitants
of the main drain area.
At the beginning of Senbo Canal, there is El Khadraweya Canal.
With respect to wastewater, the Damanhour El Wahsh villagers constructed their own
wastewater treatment collection system, where each household paid LE 300 for the
construction of the system. This system had substituted the traditional individual septic
tanks. This untreated wastewater is directly discharged into the Damanhour El Wahsh
drain, leaving the local community at the direct vicinity of the drain in a lamentable state
and health conditions. The drain is cleaned every 3 months, where solid waste is amassed
on the drain’s banks.
Sewellam Branch Canal
The surrounding area of Swellam branch canal around this canal is not highly populated.
According to Eng. Manal and Eng. Khaled, the area population is about 15,000 capita,
the canal length is about 4 km and irrigates 1,300 feddans. It covers only one village
called Mit el Rakha. This village does not suffer from a serious waste management
problem.
9 Senbo Canal was chosen for the pilot study.
9 Further visits will be arranged to have a closer look at the canal and gather related
information.
9 A field visit to Menya Governorate will be conducted during the first week of
January 2005 to visit a similar solid waste and wastewater project that has been
implemented earlier.
Menya and Benyswef Trip Report
Visit Date:
4th and 5th of January 2005
Place visited: Menya and Benyswef Governorates
Participants:
EQI:
MWRI:
Eng. Peter Nasr
Eng. Mohamed Hamed
Objective
The objective of this visit was to witness and perceive different solid and management
methodologies in projects already implemented in different locations.
The trip
The trip consisted on two days; one and a half day in Menya and half a day in Benyswef.
Meeting with the Community Developent Association of El Gazayer – Samalout –
Menya – recycling of agricultural waste project sponsored by the Coptic Evangelical
Organization for Social Services (Menya, El Gazayer district)
Attendees of this meeting:
• Mr. Basem Sayed (Program Officer of Environment and Agriculture,
technical department)
• Ibrahim Mohamed Abd El Halim (President of Local City Council)
• Mohamed Abd El Ghani Farag (CEO of Coptic Evangelical Organization
for Social Services)
• Maryam Nabil (Member of Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social
Services)
• Raafat Khalaf (Project Manager)
• Milad Ibrahim (Illiteracy Eradication Officer)
• Milad Ayad (Labor Officer)
• Emad Samy (Member of Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social
Services Board)
In this meeting, a discussion was conducted with respect to a project sponsored by the
Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services. This project’s main idea is to
recycle agriculture waste to produce compost that can be used as a fertilizer. The main
agriculture waste in this area is that of the banana, which is usually thrown away on
canals’ sides. The process includes grinding of the waste (5 m3 / hr) , stacking the grinded
material into piles while monitoring temperature and humidity for about 2 months,
followed by a process of stirring and aeration. The last step on this process is sieving the
product to remove unwanted bulks. The final product is then packed and sold to farmers
as a fertilizer.
The selling price of the product is 150 LE per ton. The production started on 5/2003 and
it uses a land area of about 1 feddan. Although this product is more expensive than the
chemical fertilizer, it proved to be more effective and it is highly demanded by the
farmers. Laboratory analysis of the organic fertilizer is carried out in Cairo. The
production volume depends on the season of the year.
Farmers there do not get any return when they give their agriculture waste to the
organization. That is why; they sometimes carelessly throw their waste on the canal sides.
The organization sometimes sends a tractor to collect all the piles of agricultural waste on
canals sides. On the other hand, farmers sell animal manure (e.g. pigeons waste) with a
considerable amount of money to the organization (170 LE per truck) because it includes
high nitrogen content. For that reason, the organization is currently thinking of owning a
chicken / pigeons farm. Waste from agriculture only (such as banana waste) is not
enough for the product realization. For example, banana waste includes a lot of water
(about 80%), and it has to be mixed with dry waste. Organic content should not be less
than 30% to have a good product. It is estimated that 1 ton of waste produces 0.4 ton of
fertilizer.
The land where the project is run now was originally a dumpsite owned by the
government. The organization gets rid of the solid waste in an allocated area used as a
dumpsite. The organization collects solid wastes from homes 3 times weekly. There are
about 500 families that regularly pay the fee for waste collection. The fee is 2 LE per
month. The organization faces problems in collecting this fee. The people who do not pay
the fee are warned through the Local City Council. The people who suffer from poverty
are served for free. The current dumpsite area is about 5 feddans.
The project started by the help of donors that financed the purchasing of the required
equipment and providing the salaries of the workers. The equipment used includes 2
grinders, 2 trench trucks, a vibrator with sieve, pump, and a weighing scale. The
buildings cost 25,000 LE, finishing cost 15,000 LE, electricity and infrastructure cost
3,000 LE and the fence cost 10,000 LE. The running cost is estimated to be 2,000 LE per
month. The project started to cover its expenses this year.
Meeting with Eng. Mohamed Abou Zeid Hussein, CEO of Menya Potable Water
and Sanitation Company (MPWSC) - Menya
• Eng. Hosni Abd El Nabi (MPWSC Manager of Environmental Awareness
and Health department)
• Eng. Ephrayem Nasif (MPWSC Environmental Awareness and Health
department vice president)
The idea of this project is to collect the solid waste from homes using a tractor for a fee
of 2 LE per month. According to Eng. Mohamed Abou Zeid Hussein, the government is
the main reason of the problem faced. He thinks that it is only punishing outlaws without
providing a solution. The project started as a partnership between UNICEF and the City
Council in Bani Mousa. UNICEF provided the City Council with a tractor to collect the
waste twice weekly. The project started on the 17th of January 2001 and the awareness
started on 2003. UNICEF offered an incentive for the awareness team so the project was
running properly for the first 2 years. When the incentive stopped as it was conceived to
be self-sufficient, the project slowed down until it almost stopped. Also, due to an
internal administrative issue, the project completely stopped.
Meeting with the Community Development Association – wastewater treatment
project – Gaafar – El Fashn – Beni Suef, and Eng. Anwar Mohamed Manaf, the
project’s
• Samy Mahrous (Adminstration Officer in Community Development
Association in Gaafar
• Fady Lotfi (Marketing officer for agricultural program)
• Milad Girgis (Financial Director for the association, Social Affairs Officer)
• Ibraam Monir (Marketing Department)
The main idea of this project is to separate between black and grey water. Black water is
the water from toilets which is biologically polluted, while grey water includes kitchen
waste water, washing water, and shower water which is not biologically polluted but
contains some organic dissolved or suspending particles. Grey water forms more than
95% of the household used water and is free from biological pollution. Grey water is
collected through a sanitation gravity network (PVC pipelines) which connects to a 3stage settling tank. Water stays on the sedimentation tank for 2-8 hours. The output water
is then used in a constructed wetland where reed is planted. There are 60 collection point
(Public screen) located in the streets as well as 62 washing place. Construction of the
network cost about 13,000 LE. The estimated cost per person for the used water recycling
is 80 LE.
The black water is collected through a double pit sanitary latrine system.
Through the site visit, it was noted that the settling tank had an unfavorable smell due to
the fact that the pump was turned off, and the local community discharges animal’s liquid
waste, that is highly reach in organic load into the same collecting system. In addition,
the collection point was sometimes blocked by organic waste such as food, and the
covers were in bad condition.
9 Sanitation program applied in Beni Suef could be a replicable project for other
governorates.
Trip Report
Visit Date:
12 January 2005
Place visited:
Zefta Directorate
1) Meeting with Sinbo main stakeholder
Agenda:
Mobilization of Sinbo Canal main stakeholders
Methodology:
Organizing a meeting involving Water Users Associations, Community Development
Associations, Local City Council, MWRI officials, and EQI. The meeting aimed at
briefing stakeholders about the project and in return, getting their feedback and, assessing
their willingness to support the project either financially or in kind.
Meeting Participants:
Senbo Water Users Association:
• Mr. Said Abdel Hamid El Za
• Mr. Mahmoud Abdel Hamid Emara
• Mr. Medhat Kamal Yamani
• Mr. Ahmed Abdel Aziz Al Deif Allah
• Mr. Al Shahat Abdel Kader Awad
• Ms. Fardos Mohamed Al Khawaga
• Mr. Saeid Aboul Ela
President
Treasurer
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Community Development Association:
• Mr. Sami Al Sayed Ahmed Selimah
• Mr. Magdi Abdel Hamid Sharaf El Din
• Mr. Magdi Mahrous El Zein
• Mr. Mohamed Abbas Selimah
• Mr. Abdel Fatah Fayez Farag
• Mr. Fares Salama Farag
• Mr. Ayman Ahmed Amr
President
Secretary
Treasurer
Vice-President
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Villagers:
• Mr. Magdi Refaat Abdel Wahab
•
•
•
•
Mr. Shaker Al Sayed Khalil
Mr. Amin Al Sayed Allam
Mr. Ramadan Helal
Mr. Fahmy Ashoush
Local City Council:
• Mr. Hussein Anwar Aboul Kheir
• Mr. Yehia Gad
President
Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation:
• Eng. Maher Al Khodary
• Eng. Zakareya Abbas
• Eng. Saeid Abdel Hadi
• Eng. Fekry Al Tawab
• Eng. Khaled
• Eng. Mohamed Hamed
EQI
•
•
Dr. Mostafa Abbas Saleh
The Meeting
- Project briefing:
Attendees from the local community, and local city council were briefed about the
project, its aims and objectives. It was expressed that in the current stage the project team
aims at gathering primary and secondary data in order to decide on the optimal solution
in terms of feasibility and cost for solid waste and wastewater problems in the selected
project area.
Attendees were informed that access to funding is more feasible to NGOs rather than
Governmental bodies, accordingly, the more active Water Users and Community
Development Associations are, the higher the potential of getting the needed fund to
implement the pilot project is. The need to engage all stakeholders’ was also stressed.
It was brought to the attendees’ attention that despite the fund raising, a financial or inkind contribution from their part is expected for the implementation of the future pilot
project, and that this contribution normally account for 25% of the total budget.
It was explained to attendees that although the MWRI is not in charge of solid waste and
wastewater problems, it finds it is obliged to deal with these problems as solid waste and
wastewater are polluting its waterways. In addition, the new vision is to transform
“Engineering the Irrigation” to “Engineering Water Resources and Irrigation”. The
concept behind this vision is to maximize the use and profit of water resources given that
both the quality and quantity of water resources counts. Under this new vision, the “total
management” concept pertains to; water pollution problems, water scarcity, water reuse… and many other water-related activities.
- Feedback
Attendees’ feedback was highly positive, and they are willing to actively contribute in the
project, although at the beginning they did not seem to have much faith in external
initiative as they had experienced lots of talk shows in the absence of substantial actions.
They also feel that the government is making a list of bans without proposing alternative
routs:
- They were banned from storing cotton’s lumber on their roofs in order to
eliminate cotton warms infection, accordingly they are no longer using it as a
source of fuel for their ovens, which added to agricultural waste problems.
- They were banned from burning rice ash in order not to reduce the “black fog”
problem.
- The EEAA provided them with free compressors, ammonia, and technical
assistance to transform agricultural waste into organic fertilizers, but the
EEAA later withheld these compressors for no known reason.
- The government is blaming them for the accentuation of wastewater problem
given that in previous times they did not have access to municipal potable
water, therefore their water consumption was very limited, but nowadays they
are using water irrationally, which lead to wastewater and groundwater rise
problems. However this is not a valid argument for the local community given
that they have the right of clean water access.
The local community showed great enthusiasm about the project, as they are aware of the
environmental problems they are facing and are eager to do something about it. They
even declared their readiness to allocating a piece of land for the project’s purposes as a
waste recycling or dumping site, or any other suitable purpose. They had also indicated
that they had already contributed financially to several local projects such as the
construction of the local hospital, the nearby road (L.E. 500,000 out of L.E. 1,500,000),
and the decreasing of groundwater level project.
It is worth mentioning that the decreasing of groundwater level project is in fact a
wastewater collection system that is illegally discharging its load into a nearby drain. The
local community and the city council official admitted that fact and different parties
recognised the need to coming-up with a solution rather than exchanging accusations.
The local city council official announced that a piece of land in Nahtay - Zefta that was
used as air-force base will be delivered to the city council. The latter will use the land for
the recycling of solid waste on Zefta level. Intermediate transfer stations in each village
will be accounted for. It is not clear however whether the local community and the city
council official are talking about the same piece of land or about two different lands.
The MWRI representatives showed willingness to discussing prospect co-operation with
the Gharbeya governor with respect to the management of solid waste, but the local
community preferred to restrain the project within their boundaries in order to achieve
tangible profits on the community level.
- Conclusion
All stakeholders are willing to contribute in the project and are ready to providing the
necessary data and information in their procession.
2) Meeting with the president of Zefta Centre and City
MWRI officials and EQI team had then a meeting with Mr. Mahmoud El Dakkak, the
president of Zefta Centre and City.
Mr. El Dakkak was briefed about the project, and he showed great enthusiasm about
it. He informed the team about the planned recycling project, where solid waste will
be collected and sorted on the village level, then transferred to the recycling factory.
The factory will be built on an area of 10 feddans, and on that stage, the operation of
which will be the responsibility of local city council units. In the future, they expect
the private sector to take over.
Lots of operational and administrative procedures regarding this recycling factory are
to be yet finalised, particularly the charging fee that remains a dilemma even on the
national level.
3) What’s next?
- Engaging other stakeholders such as the EEAA. In this regard a meeting with the
EEAA regional office officials is planed next Tuesday 18/01/2005.
- Continuing data gathering and stakeholders mobilization.
Trip Report
Background Information
Visit Date:
2nd of February 2005
Place visited
Zefta Directorate – Sinbo Canal
Attendees
• Mr. Said El Zaa(BCWA director)
• Mr. Magdy Al Zein (BCWA treasurer)
• Mr. Samy Selim (Community Development Association director)
• Mr. Hussein Anwar Aboul Kheir (Local City Council Director)
• Local City Council Deputy
• Mr. Said Aboul Ela (Local Community)
• Eng. Khaled Haroun (MWRI water users associations coordinator, Zefta)
• Eng. Mohamed (MWRI, Zagazig Directorate)
• Mr. Abdallah El Etribi (EQI)
• Eng. Samiha Ghabbour (EQI)
• Eng. Peter Nasr (EQI)
Objective
•
•
Collect data on Sinbo Canal through meeting with CDA and BCWA
Specify sampling points and define them using GPS and take photos of the
current situation
Meeting with Sinbo Canal Water Users Association and NGO, and the Local City
Council representatives (10:30 am)
• The first part of the discussion was focused on the existing sewage network,
where, according to BCWA & CDA representatives, almost 60% (90% in another
estimate) of Sinbo population uses this network (500 – 600 household). Almost
90% of the network was completed in 6 months and it is expected that the entire
network will be complete in 3 months time. According to potable water usage bills,
water consumed by the village is 27,000 m3/month, which is – for a population of
25,000 to 30,000 – represents about 1000m3/capita/month consumption rate.
•
Collected water is discharged into a drain, before the construction of the sewage
network, people used to collect their waste and dump it in the same drain. A
schematic map of the sewage network was provided by the Association. The map
indicated that sewers are designed of PVC gravity pipes. It was entirely funded by
the local community, and designed and implemented by a local experienced
contractor was responsible for its construction. Villagers had to have recourse to
funding the network further to the unacceptable increase of water level in their
houses, where they had to jump over bricks to prevent stepping in the water. This
deteriorated condition led the villagers to abandon their houses and the real-estate
values dropped drastically. After the construction of the network, land price
increased from LE 5 to LE 110 for the squared meter in one-year time.
•
Sinbo community is familiar with the concept of financially contributing and
volunteering to the enhancement of their community. The youth center, Veterinary
Unit, 7 mosques, and the part of the main road have all been financed and
constructed by the local community, including the land provision. The Association
claimed that they would provide the required area of land needed (4 kerats) for the
pilot project.
•
Then the discussion was shifted to solid waste management. The city suffers
mainly form agricultural waste. The people thought of a composting plant, but they
did not have the money to start such a project. Domestic waste in this country is
expected to contain an insignificant amount of metals (aluminum), and a
considerable amount of plastic. Thus, the recyclable portion is minimal. Amount of
agriculture waste depends on the season
Sinbo Canal covers 4 villages:
• Kafr Ismail 1,000 citizen
• Sinbo
25,000 – 30,000 citizen
• Damanhour 15,000 citizen
• Kafr Shamara 1,000 citizen
•
We should study the drain water quality to be able to improve the canal water
quality
• Further visits will be carried out to collect more data about the drain and the canal
and to carry out the solid waste management program
Zefta – Sinbo Trip Report
Visit Date:
7th of February 2005
Place visited: Zefta - Sinbo
Participants:
EQI:
Dr. Mostafa Saleh
Eng. Peter Nasr
Objective
-
Introducing the evaluation procedure of solid waste generation in Sinbo.
Gathering in depth information about Sinbo sewerage system and generated
wastewater volumes.
Surveying the Greater Sinbo-Damanhour El Wahsh drain to which the sewerage
system is connected.
Procedure
-
Meetings with the BCWUA, concerned authorities, and the local community.
Conducting GIS measurements.
Meeting with the BCWUA and the local community
BCWUA:
Mr. Said El Zaa – BCWUA chairman
Mr. Atwa Kamel Abdel Khalek – BCWUA secretary
Mr. Medhat Yamani – BCWUA board member
Mr. Shehata El Awad
MWRI:
Eng. Khaled Haroun
Mr. Samir Abdel Rahman El Shenawy
Local Community:
Solid Waste:
Mr. Said Mohamed Aboul Ela
Mr. Ibrahim Morsi Mahmoud
Mr. Magdy Maher Daghash – Selim Canal BCWUA
chairman
Mr. Gamal Abdel Naser
- A complete explanation about our target, the goal of our survey, and how the accurate
measurements of household waste generation rate and composition is necessary to design
a complete and appropriate solid waste management system for the village. We also
explained how the sampling will be conducted. We also designated the number of
households to be surveyed, and the rate of sample collection. We agreed with the
community leaders and BCWUA to start the survey on Wednesday 09/02/2005 because it
will include a feast day and a weekend, which will influence the results.
A site walk for half of the village was performed to know the nature of the village, streets
width, population density, shops, and the place of the weekly market of the village.
- Attendees were informed about the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that needs
to be agreed upon and signed by different parties. They welcomed the MoU and
expressed the need to have a contract prepared on their behalf that they would review and
sign.
- The concept of public awareness and institutional capacity building were introduced to
attendees, and they were briefed about the importance and need of these former two
concepts and informed that other colleagues will be visiting them for these purposes.
Wastewater:
- The fate of disused trenches was investigated, BCWUA explained that Sinbo houses are
provided with two types of trenches; either outside the house, in which case it had been
filled up, or inside the house, where sanitary facilities and finishing are covering the
trench, rendering it inaccessible, and simply disused. This second case is the most used
one due to the limitation of owned lands outside the houses.
- The schematic sewerage map, combined with the list of establishments within Sinbo
village, that were both provided during the previous trip revealed that only the
agglomerated residential area of the village is covered by the sewerage network given
that it was constructed by the local community to solve the rise of groundwater problem
that had badly affected their houses. Some 15 establishment, including schools, and a
hospital are within the project area, and are not connected to the network. Nevertheless,
the “Greater Sinbo Primary Mixed School” is connected to the network, and the hospital
is provided with its own solid waste system. This latter consists of a septic tank and a
sewer that is solely connected to the “Kidney Washing Unit”, which was also financed by
the local community and discharges into the same Greater Sinbo-Damanhour El Wahsh
Drain, 0.50 km apart from the domestic sewer.
- The hospital was then visited in order to collect data about the volumes and consistency
of generated wastewater.
Dr. Mohamed Hammad, hospital director was interviewed about the hospital in general,
and wastewater and solid waste in particular. The following participants contributed to
the interview:
- Engineering Technicians:
- Storage Responsible:
- Lab. Technician:
- Administrator:
Mr. Soliman Adbel Aal El Khawaga
Mr. Yehia Lotfy Gad
Mr. Hammad Hafez Abdel Kerim
Mr. Hamed Ghoneim Ibrahim
Mr. Magdy Nassef
The hospital hosts 26 bed; 6 for the kidney washing and 20 for the internal unit
(operations). Operations are normally of the simple type (hernia, …).
According to Dr. Hammad, wastewater resulting from the kidney-washing unit is
carrying blood residues such as urea and creatinin. It is worth mentioning that this
wastewater is directly discharged into the drain without treatment.
According to interviewees – based on water bills – the water the hospital consumes per
month is about 400 m3.
With respect to solid waste, interviewees explained that all solid waste generated by the
hospital is being incinerated.
- Moreover, the chairman of the “Al Gharbeya Water Company” had also been
interviewed for further water consumption patterns, he explained that:
- “Sold” water during last months constitutes 20,000 m3
- The projected population growth is about 10%
- He estimates water loss in the network at about 5%
- He expects an increase in water consumption as a consequence of the construction
of the sewerage system.
- The rate of increase in water connection is estimated at 20-50 subscriber (i.e.
family or even the entire building) per month. Current subscribers are about 1,400.
Community Development Center in Sinbo
Visit date:
13/2/2005
Visit Purpose:
CDA and BCWA introduction
Participants:
Mr. Salah Zaki (EQI)
Mr. Abdallah El Etribi (EQI)
Mr. Samir Shawki (EQI)
Board members and CEO of the CDA
Local City Council Officers
BCWA members
Meeting location:
Sinbo Youth Club
Meeting activities:
CDA introduction through

Board members

Historical background on the association

Briefing on the association activities and projects

Expected role of the association
BCWA introduction in terms of:

BCWA board of directors

Methodology and procedure of forming the association
and what has been reached so far
It was agreed upon:

Identification of the training needs in terms of capacity
building for the association generally and for the board of
directors specifically, so as to take an active part in the
project
Identification of the trainees
Future meeting on 16/2/2005 at the association site
Community Development Center in Sinbo
Visit date:
16/2/2005
Visit Purpose:

Participants:
Discuss training needs and putting some details for the
execution of the training program
Discuss procedures to start work with the association
Mr. Abdallah El Etribi (EQI)
Mr. Samir Shawki (EQI)
Board members and CEO of the CDA
Local City Council Officers
BCWA members
General public
Meeting activities:
It was agreed upon

Introducing the collaboration issue, of BCWA in
implementing the project, on Board of Directors
requesting their approval. Based on that, a Board of
Directors meeting was held to discuss this issue and
they agreed to take part in improving water quality in
Sinbo Canal

There is a need for 2 training programs to train Board
of Directors, in which all directors should attend

Familiarization with Law 84 for the year 2002

Review of the records and the documentation cycle of
the association

Active members in the General Assembly who are
expected to take part in the coming elections will attend
the training programs

There are two alternatives for the place where the
training will be held. The association will study the 2
alternatives and will inform EQI of the result on the
next meeting. The 2 alternatives are
1. Youth club in Sinbo
2. Community Development Center in Tanta
Both parties agreed to work on Friday and Saturday, if needed
Visit Date:
20th of February 2005
Participants:
EQI:
MWRI:
Eng. Khaled
Mr. Yasser
Objective
-
Briefing MWRI officials in Zefta (Eng. Fekry Tawab) about the project’s
development.
Verification of information shown on the schematic wastewater network map
provided by the local community.
Procedure
-
Meeting with Eng. Fekry Aly Tawab at MWRI’s offices in Zefta.
Meetings with the wastewater network sketch drafters (BCWUA, and the local
community).
Site visit to the drain where the “Domestic” and “Hospital” sewers are
discharging.
Meeting with Eng. Fekry Tawab
Eng. Fekry was briefed about the progress of the project in terms of solid waste and
wastewater data gathering procedures, as well as stakeholders’ receptiveness of the
project.
Wastewater data verification
Present at the interviewed:
BCWUA:
Mr. Said El Zaa – BCWUA chairman
Mr. Atwa Kamel Abdel Khalek – BCWUA secretary
MWRI:
Eng. Khaled Haroun
Mr. Samir Abdel Rahman El Shenawy
City Council: Mr. Gamal Kamel Abdel Khalek (City Council Secretary)
Local Community leader:
•
The aim of the interview was to collect as-built data about the sewage network. In
the absence of execution drawings, the only available data was obtained by
interviewing the ‘owners’ of the network. Further to discussions, adjustments to
the previously provided sketch regarding sewers trajectory were sought necessary.
Some information about sewers levels were also discussed, but don’t seam to be
much reliable as those which can be visually checked (e.g. the 12”main
discharging sewer is said to be 3.8m beneath the ground level, whereas its actual
position is just above the bed of the drain which depth cannot reach this figure).
Furthermore, Mr. Said indicated that the network was conceived to accommodate
1,750 family (with an average of 6 people per family).
•
Other data official data about Sinbo population, as well as data concerning the
sewerage network’s length were promised to be provided by stakeholders next
visit. Given that all data gathered so far were solely based on verbal information
provided by officials, it is sought that official data submitted by the City Council
would be more reliable.
Site Visit Report
Visit date:
Visit Purpose:
28/2/2005
•
Site visit with Eng. Emad Zaki (Liquid waste specialist) to
collect required Liquid waste data
• Taking samples at the designated monitoring points
Participants:
Dr. Mostafa Saleh (EQI)
Eng. Emad Zaki (EQI)
Mr. Abd Allah El Etribi (EQI)
Eng. Peter Nasr (EQI)
Mr. Samir Shawky (EQI)
Cheryl Groff (IRG)
Eng. Mohamed Hamed (IRG)
Eng. Khaled Haroun (MWRI)
Eng. Mohamed El Hamrawy (MWRI, Zagazig Directorate)
Mr. Said El Zaa (BCWUA chairman)
Mr. Mahmoud Abdel Hamid Emara (BCWA Treasurer)
Mr. Sami Al Sayed Ahmed Selimah (CDA president)
Mr. Said Mohamed Aboul Ela (local community)
Some Board members of the CDA
Some Local City Council Officers
Some local community representatives
Some BCWA members
Meeting location:
Sinbo Youth Club
Site visit with Eng. Emad Zaki (Liquid waste specialist) to collect required Liquid waste
data
Further required data regarding the liquid waste problem was collected through meeting
with the CDA members who were in charge of implementing the sewage network. A
number of solutions were proposed for discussion with all the attendees trying to reach a
feasible solution. One of the solutions was to segregate the black water from the grey
water. Black water is the water from toilets, which is biologically polluted, while grey
water includes kitchen wastewater, washing water, and shower water, which is not
biologically polluted but contains some organic dissolved or suspending particles. Grey
water form more than 95% of the household used water and is free from biological
pollution. Yet, this solution did not come out to be feasible, because the septic tanks that
people used to use before the implantation of the network was disconnected and filled
with sand since they are no more sued.
The total cost of the existing network is estimated to be 350,000 LE. After its extension
to more residential areas, its estimated cost will be 500,000 LE. It is a 2 years old
network and it serves 60 % of Sinbo residents. Subscription fee in the network is 250 LE
/ unit of bathroom and a running cost of 1 LE / month / unit of bathroom. These numbers
were estimated by dividing the total cost of the network implementation on the numbers
of bathroom units. Moreover, regarding the water consumption, more than 70% of the
houses use the old manual flush system rather than the automatic recent one.
Visit Date:
14th of March 2005
EQI team:
Dr. Mostafa Saleh
Mr. Abdallah El Etribi
Eng. Emad Zaki
Eng. Peter Nasr
Ms. Magda Nassef
Objective
Presenting different alternative for the management of solid and liquid waste in Sinbo to
stakeholders in order to get their feedback.
Procedure
-
The project was introduced to attendees by the MWRI/IRG representatives and
EQI (Dr. Mostafa Saleh, who was the meetings’ facilitator).
Problems and proposed solutions were presented by EQI team to stakeholders.
A closed meeting with decision makers was held to discuss alternative and
prioritising needed intervention in the light of limited resources.
Agenda
10:30 - 11:00
11:00 – 11:20
11:25 - 11:55
12:00 - 12:20
12:20 - 12:30
12:30 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:10
Slideshow of area representative pictures.
Project introduction by MWRI/IRG and introductory speech by Dr.
Mostafa Saleh (suggested Facilitator).
Presentation 1: Alternative Solutions to Wastewater Problems in
Sinbo; presented by Emad Zaki and Samiha Ghabbour.
Presentation 2: Alternative Solutions to Solid Waste Problems in
Sinbo; presented by Abdalla El Etriby.
Break
Film on recycling.
Closed meeting session.
Attendees
Branch Canal Water Users Association (BCWUA)
1. Said Abdel Hamid El Zaa
President
2. Atwa Kamel Abd El Khalek
Secretary
3. Mahmoud Emara
4. Ahmed Al Deif
5. Medhat Kamal Yamani
Treasurer
Board member
Board member
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sami Ahmed Selimah
Magdi Sharaf El Din
Madgy Mahrous El Zin
Fares Salama Farag
President
Secretary
Treasurer
Board member
Local City Council
10. Hussien El Sayed El Shenawi
11. Mohamed El Sayed Hussien
12. Hamad Ibrahim Abdo
13. Ramadan Helal
Member
Member
Member
Local City Council official
Others
14. Ahmed Abou El Ela
15. Ahmed Abd El Ghafour
16. Hasan Felmi El Masri
17. El Sayed Abdel Azim Behiri
18. Ibrahim Shafik Abdel Aziz
19. Tarek Mohamed Amer
20. Gamal Abdel Naser
Engineer from Potable Water Company
Engineer from Drainage Department
(Central Delta)
President of Local Community Council
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Member of Agriculturer Association
MWRI
21. Maher El Khoday
22. Said Abdel Hadi
23. Fikry El Tawab
24. Manal Michel
25. Khaled Haroun
26. Mohamed El Hamrawi
27. Abdel Latif Ramadan
28. Mohamed Yousef
29. Yaser Hosni Shady
30. Gamil Abdel Fatah
31. Samir El Mestekawy
IRG
32. Jeffrey Fredericks
MWRI
MWRI in Zefta
MRWI in Zefta
MWRI in Zefta
MWRI BCWUA coordinator
MWRI in Sharkya
Irrigation official
Irrigation official
Irrigation official
Irrigation official
Irrigation official
33. Cheryl Groff
34. Mohamed Hamad
35. Momen
MWRI / IRG
MWRI / IRG
Wastewater presentation
The presentation revolved around explaining the present situation, displaying solution
determinants (namely; project boundaries, duration, and cost), and finally proposing
alternatives. In that respect, three alternatives for the treatment of generated wastewater
have been proposed:
1) The Dual Biological Aerated Filter (proposed by MWRI), that provides 90%
treatment of treated wastewater on and area of 18*18 m2 at the cost of L.E.
1,800,000 (exclusive taxes). This solution would accommodate present and future
discharges for the next 30 years based on at present population of 17,000 capita
(this figure has been confirmed by the local community based on the official
figures provided by the filariasis treatment unit).
2) A combined septic tanks and water pumps system that would provide acceptable
treatment for either the actual 60% users of the existing sewage network on an
area of 5 kirat (1 kirat ~ 175 m) at the cost of L.E. 570,000, or for 100% of the
users on an area of 7 Kirat at the cost of L.E. 760,000.
3) Making use of disused trenches as septic tanks before wastewater reaches the
sewage network, then further treating wastewater at the main sewer outlet over
the last 50 m of the sewer, where the sewer will be perforated over that distance
and covered with a filter (graded sand and gravel and sealed with a PVC sheet) in
order to allow for a further infiltration, where the infiltrated liquid will ultimately
reach the drain. This alternative would cost L.E. 1,000 per unit (trench) in
addition to L.E. 5,000 for filtration works of the main sewer.
It is worth mentioning that for the different alternatives, sludge would either be disposed
of in a dumpsite, or dried and reused as organic fertilizer, in which case an area of 1 Kirat
would be needed.
Solid waste presentation
• In the presentation, the basic methodology of the study for Solid Waste
Management was introduced to the attendees. Waste generation rate and waste
composition were presented. It was pointed out that the main waste component
was the organic component produced from household waste. This component
constitutes about 72% of the generated waste.
•
The suggested solution for the solid waste problem is to construct a recycling
center that will collect the generated waste from the different villages on Sinbo
Canal. There are 2 options for collecting the waste, either using a tractor or using
20 cars spread in the villages.
•
Regarding the agricultural waste, the recycling center will consume almost 60%
of the generated waste and the remaining 40% will be used as animal food. The
recycling center will cut and shred the waste to produce soil fertilizer.
The estimated cost of the recycling center, including construction and equipment, is
566.850 LE and its running cost is estimated to be 78.600 per year employing 19 people.
The closed meeting
Attendees
Said Abdel Hamid El Zaa
President
Atwa Kamel Abd El Khalek
Secretary
Mahmoud Emara
Treasurer
Ahmed Al Deif
Board member
Medhat Kamal Yamani
Board member
Al Shahat Abdel Kadr Awad
Board member
Sami Ahmed Selimah
Magdi Sharaf El Din
Ayman Ahmed Hammad Omar
Fares Salama Farag
President
Treasurer
Secretary
Board member
Board member
Others
Gamal Kamel Abdel Khalek Badrah
Yehia Lotfy Gad
Tarek Abdel Hamid Amer
Hammad Ibrahim Abdo
Adel El Feky
Local City Council secretary
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
MWRI
Fikry El Tawab
Manal Michel
Khaled Haroun
Mohamed El Hamrawi
MRWI in Zefta
MWRI in Zefta
MWRI water users associations coordinator
MWRI in Sharkya
IRG
Jeffrey Fredericks
Cheryl Groff
Momen
MWR / IRG
EQI
Mostafa Saleh
Abdallah El Etribi
Emad Zaki
Samiha Ghabbour
Peter Nasr
Magda Nassef
Minutes of the meeting
• The closed meeting had been held upon the request of the BCWUA president as
he preferred discussing money issue internally before disclosing it to the larger
community.
•
Attendees were briefed about the budget limitation were a sum of U$ 80,000
would be allocated to tackling both solid and liquid waste problems in Sinbo. They
were told that MWRI / IRG had already contacted the Japanese Embassy from
which the U$ 80,000 would be sought. They were also informed that the deadline
for presenting the grant application is by the end of current March, accordingly, it
is expected that they would come up with a semi-final decision during this closed
meeting, and the final decision will have to be further discussed with the larger
community on March 28th.
Intervention prioritisation was hence the focus of the meeting, where:
-
From the MWRI point of view, solid waste management is the priority, given that
its remediation can be easily spotted and the water quality of Sinbo canal – that is
the concern of the MWRI would be enhanced, in addition, the solid waste treatment
project would be profitable. Whereas wastewater treatment would not greatly affect
the Damanhour El Wahsh drain water quality with other villages planning to
discharge their wastewater into the same drain, moreover, wastewater treatment
would necessitate the allocation of a budget for operation and maintenance costs.
-
Wastewater treatment was however the priority for the local community. With
respect to options, the “modified trench” system was not well received despite it
being the cheapest and not necessitating the provision of any land. This option was
therefore discarded as per the request of the local community, but importantly – as
explained by attendees - it would not be technically feasible given that the actual
bottom level of trenches is lower than that of sewers, accordingly the flow could not
circulate from trenches to pipelines.
-
It was brought to the attention of attendees that the phasing of projects in order for
both projects to be run in parallel would be possible, than, one of the attendees
suggested the solid waste project would partially finance the wastewater project.
-
Finally, attendees requested discussing the different issues between themselves and
coming up with the decision that will be conveyed to us during a second meeting on
Wednesday, March 23ed at noon that will be held in Sinbo. They also requested a
solid waste management feasibility study that would assist them in the decisionmaking.
Next Sinbo meetings
Wednesday, March 23ed
Monday, March 28th
Venue, time, and invitation of meetings attendees will be co-ordinated by the MWRI.
Environmental Services for
Improving Water Quality
Management
Solid Waste Management Survey
Results for Sinbo Village
Survey methodology (1/2)

Samples were chosen as to represent
the village different social classes,
including: farmers, employees, villagers,
business men, and elderly.
A set of plastic bags was distributed to
cover targeted samples.
Sampling covered weekdays as well as
weekends over a period of 10 days.
Survey methodology (2/2)

Samples were collected twice a week.
Each of the plastic bags was weighed.
Number of family members was previously
identified.
Plastic bags were emptied and sorted.
Each sorted category was weighed.
Waste generation rate was calculated per family.
The average generation rate was calculated for
the sample population.
1
Waste Generation

Waste generation rate
≈ 0.45 kg / capita / day
Household waste per village
≈ 13 ton / day
Waste Composition
10%
2%
1%2%
6%
7%
72%
Organic
Plastic
Paper
Tin
Textile
Glass
Inert
Conclusion of waste Composition

Higher than expected standard of living
Waste composition is close to that of a
“city”
The reason behind this is the daily
food market held in the village,
excluding the regular weekly market
2
Agriculture Waste

Vary seasonally according to the
yielding crops

September
October
May
June
Scope of Work (1/3)

A recycling center will be constructed on a
piece of land
Area needed is between 1800 – 2000 m2 (1/2
feddan)
Recyclables will be cut / pressed to be sold
Plastics will be finally shredded by manual
scissors
Paper, metals and tin will be pressed into
bales
Remaining organics will be composted
aerobically
Scope of Work (2/3)

The 3 main villages on Sinbo canal are
Shamara
Damanhour El Wahsh
Sinbo El Kobra
All these villages will dispose their waste at the proposed
recycling center
Approximately 30 tons can be collected daily
About 60% of the agricultural waste will be disposed in
the recycling center
The remaining 40% will either be used as animal feed or
for any other purpose
3
Scope of Work (3/3)

Each village of the three will collect its waste
twice weekly, covering the whole weekdays
Rice straw and dried maize are the main
agricultural waste of the village
Their waste will be finally shredded, minced
and composted as a mixture of agricultural
and organic waste to produce a highly
efficient soil conditioner
List of proposed Equipment
Conveyor Belt for sorting
Two presses
1.
2.
•
•
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
One for metal
One for paper
Two manual scissors for shredding plastics
Shredders for agricultural waste
Loaders for composting process and for filling
trucks with the final product
Sieves for sieving end product
Sewing machine for packaging in plastic bags
2 X 100 kg weighing scale
Wastewater Issues
Findings and Solutions Brainstorming
4
Background

Sanitation system used to be the “conventional”
trench system.
Untreated wastewater from evacuated trenches is
dumped into waterways (canals or drains).
Conventional trenches are not provided with any
lining.
=> Seepage of wastewater and groundwater
contamination.
=> “Groundwater” table rose until the ground
level of Sinbo houses soaked.
Sinbo’s community solution

Sinbo people pride themselves for
financially contributing to development of
the community’s infrastructure.
They had constructed their own sewerage
network.
The main sewer is discharged into the
Damanhour El Wahsh drain.
* The argument: wastewater was
discharged into the drain anyway.
Solution determinants

Scope of work:
* Households connected to Sewage network versus
the entire Sinbo population?
* Actual versus projected population? (30 years)
* Including the neighbouring village’s ongoing plan
to discharge into the very same Damanhour El
Wahsh drain?
5
Solution determinants (2/2)

The land
* The necessary piece of land (at the
Sewer’s location), is deemed:
- AVAILABLE, and
- OBTAINABLE (agricultural land
problems).
Proposed solutions (1/5)

Primary acceptable low tech. treatment
of the actual sewage network, while
accounting for another solution for the
rest of the population (e.g. separation
of grey & black waters)?
* Projected population?
* Neighbouring village?

Baffled septic tank (population size?).
(Treatment efficiency: 65 to 95 % COD removal).
6
Proposed solutions (3/5) – Baffled tanks

With a pumping station
Without a pumping station
* Baffled tank at the sewer level
=> Deeper underground tank
- Potential ground water problems.
- Potential interference with the covered
drainage.

Having recourse to the disused trenches for a
separated grey/black wastewater on the Sinbo
level?
* Solution not well received by the local community
given that they had paid for an appropriate service.
* Incurred implementation cost to insulate trenches
and equip households to accommodate the system.
* A sort of treatment is still needed for the
separated water
=> Short term solution
=> Neighbouring village

Conventional treatment plant
accommodating actual and projected
population, as well as neighbouring
villages.

Cost?
7
‫ﺧﻄﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺪراﺳﺔ )‪(٢/١‬‬
‫ ﺗﻢ إﺧﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎت ﻟﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﺎت اﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ‬
‫اﻟﻔﻼﺣﻴﻦ – اﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ – رﺟﺎل اﻷﻋﻤﺎل ‪...‬‬
‫ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻮزﻳﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻷآﻴﺎس اﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﻴﻜﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ‬
‫اﻟﻘﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﺘﺎرة‬
‫ ﻣﺪة اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﺗﺨﻠﻠﺖ أﻳﺎم ﻋﻤﻞ وﻋﻄﻼت وأﻣﺘﺪت ﻟﻤﺪة ‪١٠‬‬
‫أﻳﺎم‬
‫اﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺪراﺳﺔ )‪(٢/٢‬‬
‫ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻷآﻴﺎس ﻣﺮﺗﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ اﻷﺳﺒﻮع‬
‫ ﺗﻢ وزن اﻷآﻴﺎس‬
‫ ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﺪد أﻓﺮاد آﻞ أﺳﺮة )ﻋﻴﻨﺔ(‬
‫ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻔﺮﻳﻎ آﻞ آﻴﺲ وﻓﺮز ﻣﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎﺗﻪ‬
‫ ﺗﻢ وزن آﻞ ﻣﻜﻮن ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻔﺮزات‬
‫ ﺗﻢ ﺣﺴﺎب ﻣﻌﺪل ﺗﻮﻟﺪ اﻟﻘﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ أﺳﺮة‬
‫ ﺗﻢ ﺣﺴﺎب ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﻌﺪل ﺗﻮﻟﺪ اﻟﻘﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺮد‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﻌﺪل ﺗﻮﻟﺪ اﻟﻘﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫≈ ‪ ٠٫٤٥‬آﺠﻢ ‪ /‬ﻓﺮد ‪ /‬ﻳﻮم‬
‫ ﻣﻌﺪل ﺗﻮﻟﺪ اﻟﻘﻤﺎﻣﺔ‬
‫ ﻣﻌﺪل ﺗﻮﻟﺪ اﻟﻘﻤﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﻘﺮﻳﺔ ≈ ‪ ٤٫٥‬ﻃﻦ ‪ /‬ﻳﻮم‬
‫ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت‬
‫‪10%‬‬
‫‪1%2%‬‬
‫‪2%‬‬
‫‪6%‬‬
‫‪7%‬‬
‫‪72%‬‬
‫ﻏ ﻴﺮ ﻣﺼ ﻨﻔﺔ‬
‫زﺟﺎج‬
‫ﻧﺴ ﻴﺞ‬
‫ﺻ‬
‫ﻔﻴﺢ‬
‫ورق‬
‫ﺑﻼﺳ‬
‫ﺘﻴﻚ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت‬
‫ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى ﻣﻌﻴﺸﺔ أﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻊ‬
‫ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت ﺗﻘﺘﺮب ﻣﻦ اﻟﺨﺎﺻﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺪﻳﻨﺔ‬
‫ اﻟﺴﺒﺐ هﻮ اﻟﺴﻮق اﻟﻴﻮﻣﻰ ﺑﺨﻼف اﻟﺴﻮق اﻷﺳﺒﻮﻋﻰ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻋﻀ ﻮى‬
‫ﻧﻄﺎق اﻟﻌﻤﻞ )‪(٣/١‬‬
‫ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ إﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﺮآﺰ ﺗﺪوﻳﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻄﻌﺔ أرض‬
‫ اﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ‪٢٠٠٠ – ١٨٠٠‬م‪ ٠٫٥) ٢‬ﻓﺪان(‬
‫ اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﻘﺎﺑﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺪوﻳﺮ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﻄﻴﻌﻬﺎ وﺿﻐﻄﻬﺎ ﻟﻴﺘﻢ ﺑﻴﻌﻬﺎ‬
‫ اﻟﺒﻼﺳﺘﻴﻚ ﺳﻴﻘﻄﻊ ﺑﻤﻘﺼﺎت ﻳﺪوﻳﺔ‬
‫ اﻟﻮرق واﻟﻤﻌﺪن واﻟﺼﻔﻴﺢ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺿﻐﻄﻪ ﻟﺘﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻻت‬
‫ اﻟﻤﻮاد اﻟﻌﻀﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﺒﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺳﺘﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻓﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻜﻤﺮ اﻟﻬﻮاﺋﻰ‬
‫ﻧﻄﺎق اﻟﻌﻤﻞ )‪(٣/٢‬‬
‫ اﻟﺜﻼث ﻗﺮى اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺮﻋﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ ‪:‬‬
‫ ﺷﻤﺎرة‬
‫ دﻣﻨﻬﻮر اﻟﻮﺣﺶ‬
‫ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ اﻟﻜﺒﺮى‬
‫ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻘﺮى ﺳﺘﺠﻤﻊ ﻣﺨﻠﻔﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺮآﺰ اﻟﺘﺪوﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮح‬
‫ ﺣﻮاﻟﻰ ‪ ١٢-١٠‬ﻃﻦ ﺳﻴﺠﻤﻊ ﻳﻮﻣﻴ ًﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻘﺮى اﻟﺜﻼث‬
‫ﻧﻄﺎق اﻟﻌﻤﻞ )‪(٣/٣‬‬
‫‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ اﻟﻮﺻﻮل اﻟﻰ إﺛﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﻠﻮل ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻊ‬
‫ﻻ‪:‬‬
‫ أو ً‬
‫إﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺟﺮار زراﻋﻰ ﻣﻊ ﻣﻘﻄﻮرة ﺳﻌﺔ ‪ ٦‬م‪ ٣‬ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﺪد‬
‫‪ ٢‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﺠﻤﻊ واﻟﺘﺤﻤﻴﻞ وﻳﻘﻮم ﺑﺎﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ‪ ٣‬ﻣﺮات أﺳﺒﻮﻋﻴًﺎ‬
‫وﻳﺘﻢ اﻟﻨﻘﻞ اﻟﻰ ﻣﺮآﺰ ﺗﺪوﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت ﻟﻠﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ ﺛﺎﻧﻴًﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﻮزﻳﻊ ﻋﺪد ‪ ٢٠‬ﻣﻘﻄﻮرة ﺳﻌﺔ ‪ ٠٫٥‬م‪ ٣‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺷﻮارع اﻟﻘﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫وهﻰ ذات ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﻋﻠﻮى وﺑﺎب ﻳﺘﻢ ﻏﻠﻘﻪ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﻮم اﻷهﺎﻟﻰ ﺑﻮﺿﻊ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت ﺑﻬﺎ ﺛﻢ ﻳﻘﻮم اﻟﺠﺮار ﺑﺴﺤﺒﻬﺎ ﻟﻠﺘﻔﺮﻳﻎ ﻓﻰ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ﻣﺮآﺰ‬
‫اﻟﺘﺪوﻳﺮ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺰراﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻐﻴﺮ آﻤﻴﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺗﻐﻴﺮ ﻣﻮﺳﻢ اﻟﺰراﻋﺔ‬
‫ ﺳﺒﺘﻤﺒﺮ‬
‫ أآﺘﻮﺑﺮ‬
‫ ﻣﺎﻳﻮ‬
‫ ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ‬
‫ ﺣﻮاﻟﻰ ‪ %٦٠‬ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺰراﻋﻴﺔ ﺳﺘﺠﻤﻊ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺮآﺰ اﻟﺘﺪوﻳﺮ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮح‬
‫وﺣﻮاﻟﻰ ‪ %٤٠‬اﻟﺒﺎﻗﻴﺔ ﺳﺘﺴﺘﺨﺪم آﻌﻠﻒ ﻟﻠﺤﻴﻮان أو ﻹﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﺎت أﺧﺮى‬
‫ ﻗﺶ اﻷرز واﻟﺬرة اﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ هﻰ أآﺒﺮ ﻣﻜﻮن ﻟﻠﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺰراﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺟﻤﻌﻬﻢ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﻘﻄﻴﻌﻬﻢ وﻓﺮﻣﻬﻢ وﺧﻠﻄﻬﻢ ﺑﻤﻮاد ﻋﻀﻮﻳﺔ ﻹﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﻢ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﻜﻤﺮ اﻟﻬﻮاﺋﻰ ﻹﻧﺘﺎج ﺳﻤﺎد ﻋﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺠﻮدة‬
‫ﻣﺮآﺰ اﻟﺘﺪوﻳﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺒﻨﺪ‬
‫اﻹﻧﺸﺎءات‬
‫ﺳﻮر وﺑﻮاﺑﺔ وﻣﻈﻠﺔ ﺗﺨﺰﻳﻦ و ﻣﺒﻨﻰ إدارى )ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ‪ ٤٠‬م‪(٢‬‬
‫‪ ١٥٠٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﺳﻴﺮ ﻓﺮز ﻣﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻰ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ‪ ٤‬ﻋﻤﺎل ﺑﻄﺎﻗﺔ ‪ ١‬ﻃﻦ ‪ /‬ﺳﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫‪ ٩٠٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﻣﻜﺒﺲ ورق وﻣﻌﺎدن ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ‪ ١‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫‪ ٢٥٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫اﻟﻤﻌﺪات‬
‫آﺴﺎرة ﺑﻼﺳﺘﻴﻚ‬
‫‪ ١٠٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫‪ ٢‬ﻣﻘﺺ ﺑﻼﺳﺘﻴﻚ ﻳﺪوى‬
‫‪ ٥٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﻣﺎآﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﺮم ﻣﺨﻠﻔﺎت زراﻋﻴﺔ ﻗﺪرة ‪ ٣٠‬ﺣﺼﺎن ﻣﺰودة ﺑﺴﻴﺮ ﻃﺮد‬
‫‪ ٦٢٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﻣﺎآﻴﻨﺔ ﻏﺮﺑﻠﺔ دوارة‬
‫‪ ٦٠٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﻣﻘﻄﻮرة رش ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﺑﻤﻮﺗﻮر‬
‫‪ ٤٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﺟﺮار زراﻋﻰ ﻗﻮة ‪ ٦٠‬ﺣﺼﺎن‬
‫‪ ٦٥٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﺟﺮار زراﻋﻰ ﻣﺠﻬﺰ ﻟﻮدر ‪ ٩٠‬ﺣﺼﺎن‬
‫‪ ١٠٠٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫‪ ٣٥٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫ﻣﺎآﻴﻨﺔ ﺧﻴﺎﻃﺔ ﻷآﻴﺎس اﻟﺘﻌﺒﺌﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪد ‪ ٢‬ﻣﻴﺰان ﻃﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﺣﻤﻮﻟﺔ ‪ ١٠٠‬آﺠﻢ‬
‫‪ ٥٦٦٨٥٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﻣﺼﺮى‬
‫إﺟﻤﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﻜﺎﻟﻴﻒ اﻹﺳﺘﺜﻤﺎرﻳﺔ – ﻣﻌﺪات وإﻧﺸﺎءات ‪ -‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒًﺎ‬
‫اﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞ اﻹدارى‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﺐ ‪ /‬ﺷﻬﺮ‬
‫إﺟﻤﺎﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻳﺮ ﻣﺸﺮوع ‪ /‬ﻣﻬﻨﺪس‬
‫‪٦٠٠‬‬
‫‪٦٠٠‬‬
‫‪١‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺌﻮل ﻣﺎﻟﻰ‬
‫‪٤٥٠‬‬
‫‪٤٥٠‬‬
‫‪٢‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﺋﻖ‬
‫‪٤٠٠‬‬
‫‪٨٠٠‬‬
‫اﻟﻮﻇﻴﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻋﺪد‬
‫‪١‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪٢‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎل ﺗﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﻘﻄﻮرة‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪٦٠٠‬‬
‫‪٤‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎل ﻓﺮز ﻣﻊ اﻟﺴﻴﺮ‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪١٢٠٠‬‬
‫‪٢‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎل ﻣﻜﺎﺑﺲ وﻗﺺ و ﻣﺎآﻴﻨﺔ ﺗﻜﺴﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻼﺳﺘﻴﻚ‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪٦٠٠‬‬
‫‪٢‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﺎل ﻣﺎآﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﺮم ﻣﺨﻠﻔﺎت زراﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ورش اﻟﺴﻤﺎد‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪٦٠٠‬‬
‫‪٣‬‬
‫ﻣﺎآﻴﻨﺔ ﻏﺮﺑﻠﺔ وﺗﻌﺒﺌﺔ‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪٩٠٠‬‬
‫‪١‬‬
‫ﺧﻔﻴﺮ‬
‫‪٢٠٠‬‬
‫‪٢٠٠‬‬
‫‪١‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﻰ آﻬﺮﺑﺎء‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪١‬‬
‫ﻓﻨﻰ ﻣﻴﻜﺎﻧﻴﻜﻰ‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫‪٣٠٠‬‬
‫اﻟﻬﻴﻜﻞ اﻹدارى‬
‫ إﺟﻤﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﻤﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮﺑﺔ ‪ :‬ﻋﺪد ‪١٩‬‬
‫ إﺟﻤﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﺎت اﻟﺸﻬﺮﻳﺔ‪ ٦٥٥٠ :‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒ ًﺎ‬
‫ إﺟﻤﺎﻟﻰ ﺻﺎﻓﻰ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﺎت اﻟﺴﻨﻮﻳﺔ‪ ٧٨٦٠٠ :‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒ ًﺎ‬
‫أى ﺣﻮاﻟﻰ ‪ ١٠٠٠٠٠‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻠﺔ اﻟﻀﺮاﺋﺐ واﻟﺘﺄﻣﻴﻨﺎت‬
‫اﻹﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫اﻟﺼﺮف اﻟﺼﺤﻰ ﻓﻰ ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ و اﻟﺤﻠﻮل اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ‬
‫اﻷﺟﻨﺪة‬
‫ اﻟﻮﺿﻊ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ ﻣﺤﺪدات اﻟﺤﻠﻮل‬
‫ اﻟﺤﻠﻮل اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻮﺿﻊ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ‬
‫ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ زﻳﺎدة ﻣﻌﺪﻻت إﺳﺘﻬﻼك اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ زادت ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻰ آﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﻤﻄﻠﻮب اﻟﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ ﺑﺎت اﻟﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ”اﻟﺘﺮﻧﺸﺎت“‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮذى ﻧﻔﻊ‪.‬‬
‫ إرﺗﻔﻊ ﻣﻨﺴﻮب اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻟﺪرﺟﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻘﺒﻮﻟﺔ‬
‫ إﺿﻄﺮ أهﻞ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻣﺸﺮوع ﺧﻔﺾ اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻬﻮد اﻟﺬاﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮوع ﺧﻔﺾ ﻣﻨﺴﻮب اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ‬
‫‬
‫أﺗﻰ ﻣﺸﺮوع ﺧﻔﺾ اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﺑﻨﺘﺎﺋﺠﻪ ﺣﻴﺚ إﻧﺨﻔﺾ ﻣﺴﺘﻮى‬
‫اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻣﻨﺎزل ﺳﻨﺒﻮ‪،‬‬
‫و ﻟﻜﻦ‬
‫‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮوع ﺧﻔﺾ اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻣﺎ هﻮ إﻻ ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﻟﺘﺠﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت‬
‫اﻟﺴﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﺎزل‬
‫ﺣﻴﺚ‬
‫‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢ اﻟﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺼﺮف اﻟﺼﺤﻰ اﻟﻤﺠﻤﻌﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺼﺮف‬
‫دﻣﻨﻬﻮر اﻟﻮﺣﺶ‬
‫ﻣﺼﺎدر أﺧﺮى ﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺼﺮف اﻟﺼﺤﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺼﺮف دﻣﻨﻬﻮر اﻟﻮﺣﺶ‬
‫ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺼﺮف اﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻋﻦ وﺣﺪة اﻟﻐﺴﻴﻞ اﻟﻜﻠﻮى ﺑﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻰ‬
‫”ﺗﻜﺎﻣﻞ ﺻﺤﻰ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ اﻟﻜﺒﺮى“‪.‬‬
‫ ﻣﺸﺮوع أﺧﺮ ﻟﺨﻔﺾ ﻣﻨﺴﻮب اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺠﻮﻓﻴﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻗﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫دﻣﻨﻬﻮر اﻟﻮﺣﺶ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﺻﺮف ﻣﻴﺎة اﻟﺼﺮف اﻟﺼﺤﻰ ﻓﻰ اﻟﻤﺼﺮف‬
‫ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﺾ اﻻهﺎﻟﻰ ﻟﻠﻤﺨﺎﻃﺮ اﻟﺼﺤﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻔﺔ اﻟﻘﻮاﻧﻴﻦ اﻟﺒﻴﺌﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن رﻗﻢ ‪ ٤٨‬ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ‪ ١٩٨٢‬ﻓﻰ ﺷﺄن ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻧﻬﺮ اﻟﻨﻴﻞ و‬
‫اﻟﻤﺠﺎرى اﻟﻤﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﻠﻮث‪ ،‬و اﻟﺬى ﻳﺸﻴﺮ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن‬
‫اﻟﺒﻴﺌﺔ رﻗﻢ ‪ ٤‬ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ‪.١٩٩٤‬‬
‫ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن رﻗﻢ ‪ ٩٣‬ﻟﺴﻨﺔ ‪ ١٩٦٢‬ﻓﻰ ﺷﺄن ﺻﺮف اﻟﻤﺘﺨﻠﻔﺎت‬
‫اﻟﺴﺎﺋﻠﺔ‬
‫ ﻣﺎﺗﺰال اﻟﻤﺨﻠﻔﺎت اﻟﺴﺎﺋﻠﺔ ﺗﻠﻮث ﺣﺘﻰ اﻟﺘﺮع‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻣﺤﺪدات إﻳﺠﺎد ﺣﻞ ﻟﻤﺸﻜﻠﺔ ﻣﺼﺮف دﻣﻨﻬﻮر اﻟﻮﺣﺶ‬
‫•‬
‫ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻧﻄﺎق اﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ اﻟﻨﻄﺎق اﻟﺠﻐﺮاﻓﻲ‬‫‪ -‬اﻟﻔﺘﺮة اﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮوع‬
‫•‬
‫اﻟﻨﻄﺎق اﻟﺠﻐﺮاﻓﻰ‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫•‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﺻﺮف ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ )‪ %٦٠‬ﻣﻦ اﻷهﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﻮﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ(‬
‫ﺷﺒﻜﺔ ﺻﺮف ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ )‪ %١٠٠‬ﻣﻦ اﻷهﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﻮﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ(‬
‫ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ ‪ +‬اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺸﻔﻰ‬
‫ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ ‪ +‬ﻗﺮﻳﺔ دﻣﻨﻬﻮر اﻟﻮﺣﺶ‬
‫اﻟﻔﺘﺮة اﻟﺰﻣﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮوع‬
‫اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺘﺼﺮﻓﺎت ﺑﺤﺴﺐ اﻟﻌﺪد اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻰ ﻟﻠﺴﻜﺎن‬
‫أﺧﺬ ﻣﻌﺪﻻت اﻟﻨﻤﻮ اﻟﺴﻜﺎﻧﻰ ﻓﻰ اﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎر و ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻧﻈﺎم‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻳﻜﻔﻰ ﻟﻠﺜﻼﺛﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺎ اﻟﻘﺎدﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﻗﻞ‬
‫ إﻳﺠﺎد اﻷرض‬‫ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻷرض اﻻزﻣﺔ‬‫‪ -‬ﻣﺸﺎآﻞ اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺼﺎرﻳﺢ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﻒ اﻷرض‬
‫اﻟﺤﻠﻮل اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺔ‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﺬآﺮ أﻧﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻷى ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﺘﺮﺣﺎت‬
‫اﻟﻤﻄﺮوﺣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺘﺎن ﻟﻠﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﻤﺄة‪:‬‬
‫ ﺗﺠﻔﻴﻔﻬﺎ و إﺳﺘﺨﺪاﻣﻬﺎ آﺴﻤﺎد ﻋﻀﻮى‪ ،‬و ﻳﻠﺰم‬‫ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ‪ ١‬ﻗﻴﺮاط ﻣﻦ اﻷرض‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬اﻟﺘﺨﻠﺺ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﻰ اﻟﻤﻘﻠﺐ اﻟﻌﻤﻮﻣﻰ‪.‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻤﺮﺷﺤﺎت اﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‬
‫‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫ﺗﺘﻜﻮن اﻟﻮﺣﺪة ﻣﻦ‪:‬‬
‫ ﺣﻮض ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺐ إﺑﺘﺪاﺋﻰ‬
‫ ﻣﺮﺷﺢ ﺑﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻰ ﻣﺰدوج‬
‫ ﺣﻮض ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺐ ﻧﻬﺎﺋﻰ‬
‫ ﺧﺰان ﺗﻌﻘﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﻟﻜﻠﻮر‬
‫ ﻣﺮﺷﺢ رﻣﻠﻰ ﻣﻀﻐﻮط‬
‫ ﺧﺰان ﺣﻤﺄة‬
‫ ﻃﻠﻤﺒﺎت اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﻤﻌﺎدة‬
‫ ﻧﻮاﻓﺦ هﻮاء‬
‫اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﻤﺮﺷﺤﺎت اﻟﺒﻴﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﺗﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻤﺤﻄﺔ ﻟﻤﺴﺎﺣﺔ أرض ﺣﻮاﻟﻰ ‪١٨‬م*‪١٨‬م ﺑﺈرﺗﻔﺎع‬
‫‪٧‬م‬
‫ اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺤﻄﺔ ‪ ١٫٨٠٠٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ )ﻣﻠﻴﻮن و‬
‫ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻰ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ أﻟﻒ(‬
‫ اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺗﺸﻤﻞ اﻟﺘﺼﺮﻓﺎت اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ و اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻧﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻤﻴﺰات و ﻋﻴﻮب اﻹﻗﺘﺮاح‬
‫‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰات‪:‬‬
‫ أﺧﺬ اﻟﺘﺼﺮﻓﺎت اﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻰ اﻹﻋﺘﺒﺎر‬
‫ أرض زراﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﺪودة‬
‫)أﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪ ٢‬ﻗﻴﺮاط ~‬
‫‪(١٫٨٥‬‬
‫ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺟﻴﺪة‬
‫‬
‫اﻟﻌﻴﻮب‪:‬‬
‫ اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ‪ %٦٠ -‬ﻣﻮﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ – اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻰ‬
‫‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ أوﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺧﺰاﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﺮﺳﻴﺐ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻜﻮن‬
‫ﺧﻮاص اﻟﻤﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﻨﺎﺗﺠﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﺻﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮة ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫اﻟﻤﺼﺎرف وﻟﻬﺬا ﻳﻠﺰم‪:‬‬
‫ ﻋﺪد ‪ ١٠‬ﺧﺰان ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ‪ ٥‬ﻗﺮارﻳﻂ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ ‪ ٤٥٠٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ‬
‫ ﻣﺤﻄﺔ رﻓﻊ ﺑﻌﺪد ‪ ٢‬ﻃﻠﻤﺒﺔ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﺑﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ ‪ ١٢٠٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ‬
‫اﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻰ ‪ ٥٧٠٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ‬
‫ﺧﺰان اﻟﺘﺮﺳﻴﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻄﺔ اﻟﺮﻓﻊ‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ‪ %١٠٠ -‬ﻣﻮﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ – اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻰ‬
‫ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ أوﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺧﺰاﻧﺎت اﻟﺘﺮﺳﻴﺐ وﻟﻬﺬا ﻳﻠﺰم‪:‬‬
‫ ﻋﺪد ‪ ١٤‬ﺧﺰان ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ ‪ ٧‬ﻗﺮارﻳﻂ ﺑﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫‪ ٥٩٠٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ ﻣﺤﻄﺔ رﻓﻊ ﺑﻌﺪد ‪ ٣‬ﻃﻠﻤﺒﺔ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﺑﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ‪١٧٠٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ‬
‫=< اﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻰ ‪ ٧٦٠٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ‬
‫‬
‫ااﻣﻤﻴﺰات‪:‬‬
‫ إﺳﺘﻐﻼل اﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‬
‫ إﺳﺘﻐﻼل ﻣﺴﺎﺣﺔ آﺒﻴﺮة ﻣﻦ‬
‫اﻷرض اﻟﺰراﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻷرض و اﻟﺒﻨﺎء‬
‫ اﻟﺤﺼﻮل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‬
‫أوﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ ﻣﺼﺎرﻳﻒ ﺗﺸﻐﻴﻞ و ﺻﻴﺎﻧﺔ‬
‫)ﻣﺼﺪر آﻬﺮﺑﺎﺋﻰ(‬
‫ اﻟﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﻗﺮﻳﺔ ﺳﻨﺒﻮ‪ -‬اﻟﻤﻮﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ – اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻰ‬
‫ إﺟﺮاء ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺮﻧﺸﺎت ﺑﺤﻴﺚ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬
‫اﻹﺳﺘﻌﺎﻧﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ و ذﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺗﻌﺪﻳﻼت ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻮﺻﻠﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺒﺎﻧﻰ و اﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ ﺑﺤﻴﺚ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮن اﻟﻮﺻﻠﺔ‪:‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﺒﻨﻰ =< اﻟﺘﺮﻧﺶ =< ﻏﺮﻓﺔ اﻟﺘﻔﺘﻴﺶ‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫اﻟﺸﺒﻜﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﺪﻟﺔ‬
‫ اﻟﻐﺮض ﻣﻦ هﺬا اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻞ هﻮ إﺳﺘﺨﺪام اﻟﺘﺮﻧﺸﺎت آﺄﺣﻮاض‬
‫ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺐ ﻣﻊ إﺟﺮاء ﺑﻌﺾ اﻟﺘﻌﺪﻳﻼت اﻟﻔﻨﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺤﺪودة‪.‬‬
‫ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ أﻳﻀﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ اﻟﺼﺮف ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ اﻟﺘﺮﺷﻴﺢ ﻓﻰ‬
‫ال‪٥٠‬م اﻷﺧﻴﺮة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺎﺳﻮرة اﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ )‪.(“١٢‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺎﺳﻮرة‬
‫ ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺳﺪ اﻟﻤﺎﺳﻮرة ﻓﻰ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺘﻬﺎ )ﺗﻄﺒﻴﺒﻬﺎ(‪.‬‬
‫ ﺗﺨﺮﻳﻢ أﺧﺮ ‪ ٥٠‬م ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺎﺳﻮرة‬
‫ ﺗﻐﻠﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﺎﺳﻮرة ﺑﻔﻠﺘﺮ زﻟﻂ ﻣﺘﺪرج ﺛﻢ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ال ‪PVC‬‬
‫ اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ هﻰ ‪ ١٫٠٠٠‬ﺟﻢ ﻟﻠﻮﺣﺪة اﻟﺴﻜﻨﻴﺔ )ﻟﻠﻤﺒﻨﻰ و‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﻠﻤﻨﺰل(‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‬
‫اﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰات‪:‬‬
‫ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ إﺣﺘﻴﺎج ﻷﻳﺔ أرض‬
‫زراﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ ﺳﻬﻠﺔ اﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻞ ﺣﻴﺚ ﻻ‬
‫إﺣﺘﻴﺎج ﻟﻠﻤﻴﻜﻨﺔ‬
‫ ﺗﻜﻠﻔﺔ ﻣﺤﺪودة‬
‫‬
‫ ﺿﺮورة ﻧﺰح اﻟﺘﺮﻧﺸﺎت و‬
‫ﻟﻜﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﺘﺮات زﻣﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺒﺎﻋﺪة )‪ ٤‬أﺷﻬﺮ(‬
‫ﻃﺮق أﺧﺮى ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ اﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻌﺮض‬
‫‪11‬‬
‫و ﺷﻜﺮا‬
‫‪12‬‬
Wastewater treatment issues
Background
Technical constraints
Potential treatment methods
Recapitulation of feasible alternatives

Wednesday 23rd of March, 2005
Slide 1
Background

Existing network
Replacing problematic trenches.
Constructed and financed by the local
community.
Untreated sewage reaches Damanhour El
Wahsh drain.
Slide 2
Background

The land will be provided by Sinbo people (its
cost is not taken into account in the present study).
60% of Sinbo population is connected to the
wastewater collection network
Design criteria
Design wastewater volume is based on the
actual water consumption rates:
Water consumption = 29,000 m3/month ~
1,000 m3/day
Generated wastewater = 80% of consumed ~
800 m3/day for entire Sinbo & 480 m3/day for
the 60%
Slide 3
1
Technical constraints
Existing network
Could constrain decentralized
alternatives
Routing and outlets are binding
Land availability
The use of agricultural lands for
nonagricultural purposes is not permitted.

Slide 4
Potential treatment methods
Separation of grey & black waters
Combined network/trenches
Septic tanks
Dual biological Aerated Filter (DBAF)

Slide 5

Consists on separating washing water from toilets
water.
Grey water is treated in a septic tank (60%
removal of BOD), then in wetlands, and ultimately
discharged to the nearest drain.
Needs two separate wastewater piping systems.
Total cost per capita L.E 172, I.e. 172 * 17,000 =
L.E. 2,924,000
Ultimate BOD removal of 83%.
Slide 6
2
Case study of Beni Suef
Slide 7
Case study of Beni Suef
Slide 8

Not well received by the local community
They had recently financed a new
network
Necessitates adaptation
Costly
Needs the allocation of land for septic
tanks and wetlands.
Slide 9
3

Making use of abandoned
trenches as septic tanks.
Trenches needs lining &
a baffle wall.
Further treatment
(filtration) at the ultimate
50m of the main sewer at
its outlet.
Slide 10
Modified abandoned trench
Filtration of the effluent reaching
the main sewer
Slide 11

No additional land is required.
Sludge is to be regularly removed from modified
trenches (6 months)
Not supported by the local community.
They do not support plumbing works in their
houses (most trenches are constructed
underneath houses).
Technical difficulties.
Difference in levels between newly constructed
sewers and existing trenches.
Adaptation would require excessive costs: L.E.
1,000 at least per household = 1,000 * 3350
household = L.E. 3,350,000
Slide 12
4
Septic tanks

60 % wastewater treatment.
Simple technology.
Makes use of the existing
network.
The level of the sewer
necessitates a pump station
Land demanding.
Sludge to be dried (needed
land) or dumped.
Requires labour trained to a
minimum technical level.
Slide 13
Septic tanks
Pump station
Slide 14
S.T. – 60% of the population
Overall cost = L.E. 421,000
Needed surface area of 4 Kirat (700 m2)

Slide 15
5
S.T. – 100% of the population

Needed surface area of 6 Kirat (1,050 m2)
Slide 16
Biological Aerated Tower Filter System

Based on bacterial treatment.
95 % removal of BOD, SS, TKN, and TP.
Reduced need of land.
Sludge to be dried (needed land) or dumped.
Initial cost equivalent to that of septic tanks.
Have already been used in Nobariah & 6th of
Octobr city.
Needs labour trained to a minimum technical
level.
Slide 17
DBAF
Slide 18
6
DBAF

Primary sedimentation
tank.
Biological treatment tower.
Final sedimentation tank
Chlorination
Slide 19
DBAF – 60% of the population
Needed surface area = 0.31 Kirat (54 m2)

Slide 20
DBAF – 100% of the population
Needed surface area = 0.42 Kirat (72 m2)

Slide 21
7
Criteria
Separation
60%
Combined
60%
S.T. 60%
DBAF
60%
Separation
100%
Combined
100%
S.T. 100%
DBAF
100%
Initial cost
(L.E.)
1,754,400
2,010,000
421,000
494,000
2,924,000
3,350,000
616,000
727,000
60 – 83
60
60
95
6060-83
60
60
95
Tratment
Slide 22
(Septic tanks vs DBAF)
Criteria
60% S.T.
60% DBAF
100% S.T.
100% DBAF
Surface area
4 Kirat
0.31 Kirat
6 Kirat
0.42 Kirat
Initial cost
(L.E.)
421,000
494,000
616,000
727,000
O&M cost
(L.E.) per
month
1,000
1,0001,000-1,500
1,000
1,0001,000-1,500
labours
2
3
2
3
Labour
cost/month
400
600
400
600
treatment
60%
95%
60%
95%
Slide 23
8
Solid Waste Management
Problem and Alternative Solutions
Solid Waste Survey
Samples were chosen as to represent the
community’s different socio-economic
classes
Survey sample consisted of 100 household
days of solid waste

Solid Waste Survey
SW samples were collected twice a week
Waste generation rate was calculated per
family
SW samples were sorted into components
and weighed
Average generation rate was calculated for
the community

1
Solid Waste Generation
Solid Waste Generation Rate
≈ 0.45 kg /person /day
Total household waste for Sinbo village
≈ 7-8 ton /day

Waste Composition
1% 2%
2%
10%
6%
7%
72%
Organic
Plastic
Paper
Tin
Textile
Glass
Inert
Conclusion of Waste Composition

Higher standard of living than expected
Waste composition is close to that of a
“city”
2
Design Basis for SW Management Scheme
Household SWM

Household waste generation rate
= 7–8 ton / day
Assumption
75% of this amount will be collected
Remaining 25% will be mainly organic (used
for animal feeding)
So, 6 tons will be collected, transported and
disposed of daily
Scenarios for Collection and
Transportation
Three scenarios of collection and
transportation are proposed
These scenarios will be discussed with
stakeholders to decide and choose the most
appropriate alternative

Suggested Scenarios for Collection and
Transportation

Scenario 1
An agricultural tractor and a 6 m3 trailer will pass in pre-set route
collecting household waste according to a fixed time schedule
Scenario 2
15 box trailers of capacity 0.5 m3 will be distributed among the
village streets where residents dump their household waste
These trailers will be available 24 hours a day
Trailers will be replaced on a daily basis using an agricultural
tractor
Scenario 3
Waste will be collected by a mule drawn cart according to a fixed
time schedule
3
Suggested Scenarios for Disposal
Scenario 1
Collected waste will be transported to a sorting center, to be
constructed on an allocated piece of land (contributed in kind by
the community)
Waste will be sorted to recyclables and organics
Recyclables
Plastics will be shredded by manual scissors and packed
Metals will be packed as is
Paper and textiles will be wrapped manually into bales
All these products will be sold to a contractor
Organics will be composted aerobically in the sorting center
Scenario 2
Collected waste will be transported to Zefta dump site for disposal

Investment and Running Cost of Household Solid Waste Collection and Transportation System
Items
Quantity Cost/unit (LE) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Investment Cost
Agr.
6
Tractor (65 HP)
m3 trailer
0.5
m3 box trailer
Mule
cart
1
70,000
70,000
70,000
--
1
29,900
29,900
--
--
20
3,000
--
60,000
--
1
10,000
--
--
10,000
99,000
130,000
10,000
Subtotal 1
Operation and Maintenance
Maintenance
(5% of capital
--
--
5,000
6,500
500
Labor
--
--
10,000
10,000
6,000
Fuel
--
--
2,650
2,650
1,200
17,650
19,150
7,700
cost)
Operational cost
and lubricants
Subtotal 2
Depreciation (7 years period)
--
--
14,275
18,600
2,500
Contingency (10%)
--
--
9,900
13,000
1,000
24,175
31,600
3,500
Subtotal 3
Comparison of Collection and
Transportation Scenarios
140,000
130000
Cost (L.E.)
120,000
100,000
99000
80,000
60,000
40,000
24175
17650
20,000
31600
19150
10000 7700
3500
0
Scenario 1
Investment Cost
O&M Cost
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Depreciation and Contingency
4
Agricultural Waste

Vary seasonally according
to the yielding crops
May
June
September
October
Agricultural Waste

Sinbo canal irrigates 2,000 feddan
Agricultural waste generation rate
= 1 – 1.2 ton / feddan / year
(rate as advised from Agricultural Research Center)

Agricultural waste = 2,000 ton / year
Assumption
40 % of generated waste is kept by farmers for
further use
60% of generated waste will be collected and
used to produce compost
Agricultural Waste Collection and
Transportation Scenarios

Scenario 1
Farmers will transport their Agr. Waste to the SW
sorting center
SW would be processed (shredded and packed) for a
fee to be paid by the farmer
Farmer will transport SW to his own composting site
Scenario 2
SW will be collected and transported by a tractor or a
mule drawn cart (owned by the sorting center) to the
sorting center for processing and making compost
5
Disposal Cost

Investment cost
Wire Mesh Fence
6 m Conveyor Belt for separation
Manual Scissors (2 units)
Manual Press
Agricultural Shredder
Water pump and hose
Subtotal
Operational and Maintenance
Operational Cost / year
Depreciation (7 years period)
Subtotal
Contingency cost
TOTAL
L.E. 11,000
L.E. 13,200
L.E. 500
L.E. 2,000
L.E. 62,000
L.E. 2,000
L.E. 90,700

L.E. 22,200
L.E. 3,815
L.E. 26,015
L.E. 9,070
L.E. 125,785
Sorting Center Annual Revenue

Assuming 6 tons will be collected daily, so 180
tons will be collected monthly
148 tons will be composted
59 tons of compost will be produced every 2
months
354 tons of compost will be produced annually
from household waste
Estimated selling price of compost = 70 L.E. / ton
Revenue = L.E. 24,780 / year
Sorting Center Annual Revenue
Item
Price / ton Quantity produced Total Price
(LE)
(ton / year)
(LE)
Mixed plastic
700
30
21,000
Paper
40
48
1,920
Metals
100
16
1,600
Glass
40
16
640
Textile
60
7.2
432
Compost (h.h.)
75
354
24,780
75
400
30,000
Compost (Agr.)
TOTAL
80,372
6
Revenue analysis / Cost Recovery of Sorting Center

No. of households in Sinbo = 3,350
Assuming 65% will be served
So, waste will be collected from 2,170 h.h.
A monthly SW collection fee of L.E. 2.5 will be paid by
each served h.h.
Revenue (LE)
Compost
Recyclables
Service fees
TOTAL
L.E. / year
54,780
25,592
65,100
145,472
Revenue analysis / Cost Recovery of Sorting Center
Item
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Cost
41,825
50,750
11,200
Revenue
145,472
145,472
145,472
94,722
134,272
Net profit 103,647
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
Cost
Reveue
Net Profit
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
7
USAID / Egypt
International Resource Group (IRG)
Livelihood and Income from the Environment (LIFE)
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)
Local Technical Assistance to Support Activity 5
Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality
Management
General Background

Rural Egypt suffers from a problem of solid and
liquid waste management in most of its
governorates
Reasons include
Poor disposal practices
Absence of better alternatives
Implications include
Degraded water quality
Major health hazards
Blockage of drainage and irrigation network
Slide 2
Slide 3
1
General Background

Ministry of Water
Resources and
Irrigation (MWRI)
is seeking to
develop practical
solutions to solve
these major
Environmental
problems
Slide 4
Objectives of Task #5

Improving management of locally generated liquid and
solid wastes
Encourage greater civic responsibility in
maintaining the water conveyance infrastructure
improvements in the quality of local water resources
Implementation of management interventions on a pilot
scale to realize above objectives
Slide 5
Pilot Area Definition

Unit of operation: canal / drain
Criteria for selection of canal / drain
The branch canal is of manageable size
The existence of an active water users associations
Availability of land that can be used to accommodate
selected interventions
Available choices (Zefta
(Zefta Directorate)
Taalaba Canal
Al Bazenganeya Canal
Sinbo Canal
Sewellam Branch Canal
Slide 6
2
Selected Pilot Area

Sinbo Canal
Length:
Average width:
Number of water users:
Inflow:
Outflow:
Covered Area:
Damanhour El Wahsh Drain
Length:
Average width:
Inflow:
Outflow:
Covered Area:
6.6 km
3m
1,698 user
Khadraweya canal
Damanhour El Wahsh drain
4 stretches
Slide 7
Selected Pilot Area

Villages located on Sinbo Canal
17,000
Sinbo Village
15,000
Damanhour El Wahsh village
5,000
Kafr Ismail
6,000
Kafr Shamara
TOTAL
43,000
Sinbo village Area:
1807 feddan
107 feddan
Residential
1635 feddan
Agricultural
64 feddan
Infrastructure and cemeteries
Ponds and nonnon-productive
agricultural land
1.5 feddan
Main residents activity:
Agriculture
N.B. Data provided by Community Development Association in Sinbo
Slide 8
Background Information

Existing wastewater network
Consists of 11.5 km plastic gravity pipes
Designed to serve 17,000 user in 13,500 household , generating 800
800
m3/day
Only 12,500 user in 2,500 household are currently connected
Implemented by CDA and funded by users
Subscription fee:
L.E. 250 per bathroom (connection fee)
L.E. 1 per month per bathroom (running cost)
Overall cost L.E. 400,000
Untreated sewage is discharged in Damanhour El Wahsh Drain
N.B. Data provided by Community Development Association in Sinbo
Slide 9
3
Description of Extent of Problem

Sinbo Canal
Highly polluted with solid
waste, both domestic and
agricultural
Discharge of untreated
sewage is frequent
Signs of eutriphication is
clear throughout the canal
Detailed chemical analysis
of water quality is
underway
Slide 10

Damanhour El Wahsh Drain
Receives the full untreated discharge from Sinbo
network (800 m3/day)
Expected to receive untreated discharge of Damanhour
El Wahsh network now under construction
Discharge of untreated sewage is considerably larger
than that from agricultural waste water
Water in the drain is virtually pure untreated sewage
Solid waste problem is less severe than in Sinbo canal
Slide 11
Drainage Network
Damanhour El Wahsh drain
Gharbeia drain
El Abbasi Main Canal
Slide 12
4
Slide 13

Sinbo Village
Generated solid waste of Sinbo residents
amounts to 77-8 ton/day
Household waste is collected twice weekly
Generated agricultural solid waste of Sinbo
averages 2000 ton annually
No system for disposal of agricultural waste
Dumping of solid waste in canals, drains or
empty lots is widely practiced
Slide 14
Slide 15
5
Monitoring Methodology
Water Quality Analysis at designated points
using GPS coordinates
Photographic Documentation

Slide 16
6
Watewater Treatment Plants in Egypt
Source: Country profile on environment Egypt, February 2002, planning and evaluation department
Japan international cooperation agency
List of stakeholders
MWRI
Eng. Maher Al Khodary
Eng. Zakareya Abbas
Eng. Mohamed Hamed
MWRI – South Zefta District
Eng. Fikry A. El Tawab, District Director South Zefta
Eng. Said Abdel Hadi
Eng. Manal Michel
Eng. Khaled Haroun
Abdel Latif Ramadan
Mohamed Yousef
Yaser Hosni Shady
Gamil Abdel Fatah
Samir El Mestekawy
Samir Abdel Rahman El Shenawy
MWRI – Zagazig Directorate
Eng. Mohamed El Hamrawy (MWRI, Zagazig Directorate)
City Council - Markaz and City of Zefta
Mr. Mahmoud El Dakkak
President of Zefta Markaz and City.
Sinbo Local City Council
Hussein Anwar Aboul Kheir
Gamal Kamel Abdel Khalek Badrah
Hussien El Sayed El Shenawi
Mohamed El Sayed Hussien
Hamad Ibrahim Abdo
Ramadan Helal
Yehia Gad
President
Secretary
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Said Abdel Hamid El Zaa
Chairman
Atwa Kamel Abd El Khalek
Secretary
Mahmoud Abdel Hamid Emara
Treasurer
Ahmed Abdel Aziz Al Deif Allah Board member
Medhat Kamal Yamani
Board member
Al Shahat Abdel Kader Awad
Board member
Ms. Fardos Mohamed Al Khawaga Member
Sami Al Sayed Ahmed Selimah
Chairman
Mohamed Abbas Selimah
Vice-President
Magdi Abdel Hamid Sharaf El Din Secretary
Treasurer
Fares Salama Farag
Board member
Ayman Ahmed Hammad Omar
Abdel Fatah Fayez Farag
Ayman Ahmed Amr
Board member
Board Member
Board Member
Local Community leaders
Local Community
Yehia Lotfy Gad
Tarek Abdel Hamid Amer
Hammad Ibrahim Abdo
Adel El Feky
El Sayed Abdel Azim Behiri
Ibrahim Shafik Abdel Aziz
Magdi Refaat Abdel Wahab
Shaker Al Sayed Khalil
Amin Al Sayed Allam
Fahmy Ashoush
Ibrahim Morsi Mahmoud
Ahmed Abou El Ela
Hasan Felmi El Masri
Gamal Abdel Naser
Magdy Maher Daghash
Ahmed Abd El Ghafour
Engineer from Potable Water Company
President of Local Community Council
Member of Agricultural Association
Selim Canal BCWUA chairman
Engineer from Drainage Department
(Central Delta)
Sinbo Community Development Association and Branch Canal Water
Users Association (Board of Directors Members)
1.1 Program Objective
This training aims to prepare the Board of Directors Members so that they can
take an active role in improving the water quality in Sinbo Canal.
1.2 Training Target Group
•
Board of Directors
•
Local Leaders that are expected to take part in the project
•
Some member of the General Assembly that are expected to be future
members in the association
1.3 Number of trainees
10 – 12 trainee
1.4 Training Location
It is preferred to hold the training program in the Social Affairs Center in
Tanta
1.5 Training Period
6 days, divided into 2 modules (see following table)
•
Module 1:
o Familiarization with Law 84 for the year 2002
o Basics principles and responsibilities of the Board of Directors Members
in managing the association
•
Module 2:
o Financial Management in civil societies (NGO’s)
o Internal Monitoring in civil societies (NGO’s)
2. Familiarization with Law 84 for the Year 2002
Day
1
Subject
1. Introducing the program
-
Contributors
expectations
Program
objectives
Contents of
the program
2. Introducing Law 84 for the year 2002
Law
significanc
e
Law
contents
3. Associations targets, rights and
obligations
4. Association relation with managing
authorities
2
3
Association management (Each department
and its specialty)
General
Assembly
Board of
Directors
Association management (Code of practice)
Association
Financial
issues
Membership
Remarks
3. Financial Management and Internal Monitoring in NGO’s
1
2
3
• Introduction, objectives
and Expectations
• Financial Management
in NGOs
• Accounting (importance
and targets)
• Documentation cycle
• Records
• Internal Monitoring
(definition and
importance)
• Internal Monitoring
(Aspects and
determinants)
• Setting roles and
responsibilities
3rd session
1:30 – 3:00
• Accounting technique
in NGOs
• Accounting
(definitions and terms)
• Recording technique
in records and
documents
• Financial code of
practice and
expenditure rules
• Expenditure
techniques
• Expenditure limits
and responsibility
30 minutes break
Day
2nd Session
11:30 – 1:00
30 minutes break
1.1.1
1st Session
9:00 – 11:00
• Accounting
classification
• Practical example on
accounting
classification
• Practical example on
recording techniques in
records and documents
• Bank monitoring and
banking settlement
• Finalizing training
program and evaluation
The system of separating grey and black wastewater has been implemented by Eng.
Anwar Mohamed Manaf, village sanitation expert, in several villages in Beni-Suef,
within the framework of the Regional Water and Sanitation Project (RWSP), financed
by FINNIDA. Project data and photos shown below are courtesy of Eng. Manaf. Cost
of project implementation in Beni Stuef is shown in the following tables.
Costs for project implementation in Beni Suef
2001 cost for implemented projects
Village
Served population
Total cost (L.E.)
Cost/ person (L.E.)
Kom El Sa-aïda
2,000
115,000
58
Mohamed Saleh
2,000
150,000
75
Youssef Sedki
1,700
150,000
88
Double latrine cost
6
425
71
Costs of the year 2001
Population
Grey water cost Double-latrine
cost (L.E.)
Total Cost
(L.E.)
Total Cost/
capita (L.E.)
3,000
218,421
212,500
430,921
144
4,000
291,228
283,333
547,561
137
5,000
364,035
354,167
718,202
144
Costs of the year 2004
Population
Grey water cost Double-latrine
cost (L.E.)
Total Cost
(L.E.)
Total Cost per
capita (L.E.)
3,000
262,105
255,000
517,105
172
4,000
349,474
340,000
689,474
172
5,000
436,842
425,000
861,842
172
According to Eng. Manaf, the estimated cost for a conventional wastewater treatment
system for a village of 5,000 people is L.E. 5 to 6 million, whereas that of the
grey/black water separation system represents 15% of that figure as it costs only L.E.
768,400 on average.
The village grey water is collected either through scattered collection spots (public
screens), or at the location of hand pumps and public washing places (always
associated with hand pumps). The collection procedure is a public one, where
households dispose of their used water in hollow constructed blocks about 75 cm
high, and covered with a tilted screen in order to prevent the channeling of solid
substances in the collection pipes. Disused water from public manual hand pumps,
and wastewater resulting from public laundry operations are directly collected in situ.
Public Screen for the disposal of household grey water
Grey water collection from hand pumps
Combined public washing places and hand pump
Grey water channels through gravity PVC pipelines to a settling tank, then to an
aquatic bed filter. Used grey water pipelines are usually of smaller diameters as
compared to conventional wastewater pipes due to their lower density. In addition,
gravity slopes are also less for the same reason. Accordingly, excavation depth and
cost is reduced.
Suspended organic substances initially precipitate in the settling tank where they
undergo anaerobic decomposition, and the liquid is then pumped to the aquatic gravel
filter, which is planted with reeds, where dissolved organics are aerobically treated.
Oxygenation necessary for the aerobic treatment is ensured through the three staged
weir, as well as reeds planted in the gravel filter. Liquid resulting from this treatment
can be either used for the irrigation of trees or disposed of in drains.
Grey water/black water separation system.
The following table shows results of the analysed treated grey water in Mohamed
Saleh village in El Fashn.
Grey water analysis in Mohamed Saleh village El Fashn district
Date
9/10/0
2
10/11/
02
23/2/0
3
4/10/0
3
Raw water
pH
After settling
SS
BOD
COD
910
340
541
7.3
364
200
263
7.3
592
240
732
7.2
172
300
319
pH
After filtration
SS
BOD
COD
pH
SS
BOD
COD
DO
76
220
137
7.6
28
160
35
7.4
36
70
88
7.7
6
6
0
4.5
7.3
132
30
136
7.3
8
20
57
4
7
40
50
24
3
Results show that 60% of BOD, 75% of COD, and 85% of SS are removed in the
sedimentation tank, and ultimately 83 % of BOD, 93.9 of COD, and % 91.5 of SS are
removed further to the aquatic filtration.
The double-pit latrine consists of two pits of 1.5m depth and 1.0m internal diameter
constructed of local white bricks. The bottom of the pits are 0.5m above the water
table level, and minimum water quantities are used for sanitation purposes.
Accordingly, ground water pollution is kept to a minimum or even prevented. The pits
are used subsequently where only one is used until it is filled up with sludge. The
filling duration is estimated at 18 months for a six-member family. Once the first pit
gets filled up, the use of the other pit starts to take place. In the meantime, sludge in
the first pit dries has the chance to dry. The drying process takes about 6 months and
the dislodged residues are used as organic fertilizers.
Double-pit latrines
AREA, YIELD AND PRODUCTION OF
SUMMER RICE CROP BY VARIETIES, 2003.
GOVERNORATES
Alexandria
PROD.
TON
14070
TOTAL
YIELD
TON
3.16
TOTAL (SHORT GRAIN + LONG GRAIN)
NEW LANDS
OLD LANDS
AREA
PROD. YIELD
AREA
PROD
YIELD
AREA
FED
TON
TON
FED
TON
TON
FED
4452
1935
3.091
626
12135
3.172
3826
Beharia
869661
4.167
208702
869661
4.167
208702
Gharbia
701071
4.283
163687
701071
4.283
163687
Kafr El Sheikh
1138795
4.228
269346
1138795
4.228
269346
Dakahlia
1850246
4.134
447560
1850246
4.134
447560
244055
3.831
63705
244055
3.831
63705
Sharkia
Damietta
1068775
3.981
268469
56816
3.782
15022
1011959
3.993
253447
Ismailia
14288
2.955
4835
1122
2.461
456
13166
3.007
4379
Port Said
66060
3.200
20642
66060
3.200
20642
532
3.129
170
532
3.129
170
76885
3.575
21505
76885
3.575
21505
187
3.169
59
187
3.169
59
6044625
4.103
1473132
5984752
4.108
1457028
1556
3.339
466
1556
3.339
466
Suez
Qalyoubia
Cairo
Lower Egypt
Beni suef
59873
3.718
16104
Fayoum
94964
3.884
24449
94964
3.884
24449
Middle Egypt
96520
3.874
24915
96520
3.874
24915
6141145
4.099
1498047
59873
6081272
4.104
1481943
32880
3.574
9200
426
1.101
387
6081272
4.104
1481943
Total
New Valley
Noubaria
Total
33306
Grand Total
6174451
3.474
4.095
9587
1507634
3.178
16104
32880
3.574
9200
426
1.101
387
33306
93179
3.474
3.627
9587
25691
SUMMER ( White Maize & Corn) Crop, 2003.
GOVERNORATES
Alexandria
PROD.
TON
TOTAL
YIELD
TON
NEW LANDS
OLD LANDS
AREA
PROD.
YIELD
AREA
PROD
YIELD
AREA
FED
TON
TON
FED
TON
TON
FED
58357
2.642
22090
56709
2.631
21555
1648
3.08
535
Beharia
532757
4.038
131920
11030
3.151
3500
521727
4.063
128420
Gharbia
291711
3.591
81234
291711
3.591
81234
Kafr El Sheikh
212391
3.581
59318
212391
3.581
59318
Dakahlia
174514
3.854
45279
174514
3.854
45279
Damietta
13280
3.49
3805
13280
3.49
3805
Sharkia
713137
3.368
211750
91395
3.483
26237
621742
3.351
185513
Ismailia
107489
3.339
32192
37657
3.125
12051
69832
3.467
20141
549
1.818
302
549
1.818
302
Port Said
Suez
8330
2.871
2901
8330
2.871
2901
Menoufia
739940
3.499
211496
739940
3.499
211496
Qalyoubia
243869
3.433
71041
243869
3.433
71041
1891
1.988
951
1891
1.988
951
3098215
3.544
874279
2901424
3.578
810936
Giza
264094
3.846
68671
264094
3.846
68671
Beni suef
337488
2.935
114972
326197
2.942
110878
Fayoum
108959
2.958
36838
108959
2.958
36838
Menia
847148
3.536
239551
24754
3.087
8018
822394
3.552
231533
1557689
3.386
460032
36045
2.976
12112
1521644
3.397
447920
Assuit
305352
3.212
95078
4457
3.428
1300
300895
3.209
93778
Suhag
379922
3.22
117988
379922
3.22
117988
Qena
107195
2.685
39921
104751
2.704
38733
Aswan
21045
2.328
9039
Luxor
28617
2.736
842131
3.091
Cairo
Lower Egypt
Middle Egypt
Uper Egypt
Total
5498035
3.422
196791
11291
3.107
2.758
63343
4094
2444
2.057
1188
21045
2.328
9039
10461
67
1.34
50
28550
2.742
10411
272487
6968
2.745
2538
835163
3.094
269949
1606798
239804
3.075
77993
New Valley
1439
1.958
735
1439
1.958
735
Matruh
9121
2.058
4432
9121
2.058
4432
North Sinai
Noubaria
Total
Grand Total
187
0.792
236
187
0.792
236
172999
3.794
45598
172999
3.794
45598
183746
5681781
3.603
3.427
51001
1657799
183746
423550
3.603
3.283
5258231
3.439
1528805
51001
128994
5258231
3.439
1528805
Wheat crop by varieties 2003
GOVERNORATES
PROD.
TON
TOTAL
YIELD
TON
NEW LANDS
OLD LANDS
AREA
PROD.
YIELD
AREA
PROD
YIELD
AREA
FED
TON
TON
FED
TON
TON
FED
Alexandria
138787
2.49
55738
133030
2.488
53463
5757
2.531
2275
Beharia
614153
2.776
221197
28101
2.243
12528
586052
2.809
208669
Gharbia
355264
2.844
124917
355264
2.844
124917
Kafr El Sheikh
505469
2.772
182348
505469
2.772
182348
Dakahlia
711086
2.883
246648
705221
2.888
244148
Damietta
50876
2.526
20141
50876
2.526
20141
Sharkia
885209
2.869
308489
5976
2.386
2505
879233
2.873
305984
Ismailia
73142
2.196
33307
18116
1.813
9993
55026
2.36
23314
8547
2.003
4268
8547
2.003
4268
Port Said
Suez
5865
3580
2.194
1632
Menoufia
259727
2.876
90324
Qalyoubia
112243
2.806
39994
666
2.22
300
3718749
2.798
1329303
191550
2.359
Giza
102239
3.255
31410
12469
Beni suef
330182
2.933
112594
Fayoum
459691
2.85
161295
Menia
535155
2.925
182959
1427267
2.923
488258
Cairo
Lower Egypt
Middle Egypt
434
2.346
3146
2.189
1437
259727
2.876
90324
112215
2.807
39983
666
2.22
300
81195
3527199
2.826
1248108
2.91
4285
89770
3.309
27125
9140
2.673
3419
321042
2.941
109175
15692
2.001
7844
443999
2.893
153451
35958
2.629
13678
499197
2.949
169281
73259
2.507
29226
1354008
2.95
459032
28
2.226
2500
2.545
195
11
Assuit
432324
2.93
147576
432324
2.93
147576
Suhag
457863
2.847
160823
23809
2.742
8682
434054
2.853
152141
Qena
234006
2.547
91875
44068
2.074
21246
189938
2.689
70629
Aswan
43374
2.536
17100
43374
2.536
17100
Luxor
34683
2.513
13804
1631
1.939
841
33052
2.55
12963
431178
69508
2.259
30769
1132742
2.829
400409
Uper Egypt
Total
1202250
6348266
2.823
2248739
334317
2.368
141190
New Valley
85410
2.19
39000
85410
2.19
39000
Matruh
13736
0.415
33060
13736
0.415
33060
North Sinai
15609
0.616
25319
15609
0.616
25319
South sinai
71
1.183
60
71
1.183
60
381600
2.385
160000
381600
2.385
160000
Noubaria
Total
Grand Total
496426
6844692
1.928
2.731
257439
2506178
496426
830743
1.928
2.084
6013949
2.854
2107549
257439
398629
6013949
2.854
2107549
Criteria of treated wastewater that could be discharged into waterways
PH
Temperature
Colour
Dissolved Oxygen
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) – (permanganates method)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) – (dichromate method)
Suspended Solids (SS)
Sulfides
Oil and Grease
Nitrite
Heavy Metals Estimated as Microscopic Lead Analysis
Total Coliform
7 - 8.5
5 oC above average
Free of coloured substances
Not less than 2 mg/l
Does not exceed 20 mg/l
Does not exceed 0.5 mg/l
Nil
Should be free from intestinal parasite ova
Does not exceed 100/100 cm3
Nil
All types of insecticides
Upper limits for reused treated wastewater
Item
Unit
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Number/l
Group 1
Primary
Treatment
300
600
350
Undefined
5
Group 2
Secondary
Treatment
40
80
40
10
1
Group 3
Tertiary
Treatment
20
40
20
5
1
DOD5
COD (dichromate)
TSS
Oil & Grease
Number of cells or ova
of intestinal parasites
Number of Fecal
Coliform Cells
Maximum Concentration
of Total Dissolved Salts
Percentage of Sodium
Absorption
Chlorides Concentration
Boron Concentration
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Arsenic
Chrome
Molybdenum
green fodder only
Manganese
Iron
Cobalt
Per 100/ml
Undefined
1000
100
ppm
Up to 2500
Up to 2000
Up to 2000
%
25
20
20
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
Up to 350
Up to 5
0.05
10
Undefined
0.5
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
Undefined
300
Up to 3
0.01
5
0.2
0.2
2
Undefined
Undefined
0.01
300
Up to 3
0.01
5
0.2
0.2
2
0.1
0.1
0.01
ppm
ppm
ppm
0.2
Undefined
Undefined
0.2
5
0.05
0.2
5
0.05
Reuse of treated wastewater for agricultural purposes
Group
Level of
Treatment
Permitted
Crops
Environmental and
Health Provisions
Group 1
Primary
Timber trees
- Fencing off the
farm
- Preventing direct
contact with the
water
- Restricting access
- Preventing the
access of cattle
Suitable
Type of
Irrigation
Lines
Proposed Type of
Soil
Light consistency
permitted in arid
lands 5 km away
from residential
areas while
performing periodic
environmental
assessment
Implementing
measures for the
protection
against
pathogens
Group 2
Secondary
- Palm trees,
Cotton, Linen.
- Fodder
crops, dried
grains
- Fruit with
peel
- Vegetables
for cooking
- Fruits for
heat
processing
- Flower
nurseries
- Farm animals other
than those used for
milk or meat
production.
- Food should be
cooked
Lines &
Dripping
Light & Moderate
Consistency
Group 3
Tertiary
All sorts of
plants
None
All types
with the
exception
of
sprinkler
irrigation
All types
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTERNATIONAL
(EQI)
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: Bahgat El-Sayed Ali
Date of Birth: 15/10/1946
Profession:
Nationality: Egyptian
Proposed Position on Team: Agricultural Waste Management Consultant
KEY QUALIFICATIONS
Dr. Ali has thirty-eight years of professional experience of which he had consecrated
over eighteen years to agricultural waste recycling researches. He is the director of the
Central Laboratory of Agriculture at the Agricultural Research Centre, and the
executive director of both the Integrated Systems for Agricultural Wastes
Management Unit, and the Production Unit of Preparations Used in Organic
Agriculture. Dr. Ali provides technical consultancies to a wide range of clients,
mainly; EQI; the Desert Development Centre of the American University in Cairo; the
Egyptian Company for Agricultural Residues Utilization (ECARU) for the production
of compost from agricultural residues and municipal solid waste; Engineering Tasks
Group ( ENTAG); AL Hada Company for Organic products; AL Kalila for production
of Compost from Poultry Manure (BIO- Green); MAB - Complex for Food
production Company for the production of compost from poultry manure ( BIOMAB); EcoConServ, Environmental Services for “ Recycling of Agricultural
Residues; “Misr El Salam International Organic Fertilizer for the production of
poultry manure pellets.
EDUCATION
1985
Faculty of Agriculture
Microbiology,
Ain Shams University, Egypt
Wastes For
Ph.D. in Agricultural
"Bioenergy
From
Organic
Rural Egypt"
1979
Microbiology,
Cairo University,. Egypt
Microbial
M.Sc.
“Effect
Activities
in
of
in
Agricultural
Fertilization
Soils
Relation to Nitrogen
Balance”.
1967
Cairo University, Egypt
EXPERIENCE RECORD
B.Sc. in Soil Science.
and
on
its
2004 - Present
Position
- Director of Central Lab. of Organic Agriculture, Agricultural Research Centre, as
of June 15. 2004.
-
Executive director of “Integrated systems for Agricultural Wastes Management Unit” and
responsible for compost production and Organic Farming.
- Executive director of “ Production Unit of Preparations Used in Organic
Agriculture ”.
- Consultant of the Desert Development Centre, American University in Cairo
for recycling of agricultural wastes, compost production and organic farming.
2003 – 2004
Agriculture for Research
Position: Deputy Director
Central
Lab.
of
Organic
and Development,
Agricultural Research Centre,
Egypt
1995-2003
Recycling of Organic Wastes
and Bioenergy Position: Chief of Researchers Agricultural Microbiology ,
Section,
Agricultural
Microbiology
Research Dept,
Soils, Water and Environment
Research Institute,
Egypt.
1990 – 1995
Bioenergy Section
Position: Senior Researcher of Soil Microbiology,
Research Dept
Recycling of Organic Wastes &
Agricultural
Microbiology
Soils, Water and
Environment
Research Institute,
Agriculture
Egypt
1986 – 1990
Position: Researcher of Soil Microbiology,
Bioenergy Section,
Research
Centre,
Recycling of Organic Wastes &
Agricultural
Microbiology
Research Dept,
Soils
&
Water
Research
Institute,
Egypt
1981 – 1986
Agricultural
Microbiology
Research Department
Position: Associate Researcher of Soil MicrobiologySoils & Water Research Institute
Egypt
1974 – 1981
Agricultural
Microbiology
Research Department
Position: Researcher Assistant of Soil Microbiology Soils & Water Research Institute
Egypt
1968 - 1974
Research Department
Position: Agronomist
Agricultural
Microbiology
General Organization of Soils,
Ministry of Agriculture, Egypt
LANGUAGES
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Arabic
English
Excellent
Very Good
Excellent
Very Good
Excellent
Very Good
MEMBERSHIP OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES:
Egyptian Society of Applied Microbiology; Egyptian Society of Soil Science; International Humic
Substances Society, USA.
PUBLICATIONS
1. Alaa El-Din, M.N., Ishac, Y.Z., El-Brollosy , M.N. , El- Shimi,S.A.and Ali,
B.E. (1982). Biogas from Agricultural Residues in Egypt. The First OAU /
STRAC Center. African Conf. on "Biofertilizers" Cairo, Egypt, March, 22 26.
2. Alaa El - Din, M.N., Gomaa, H.A., El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1984).
Biogas production from kitchen refuses of Army Camps of Egypt using a two
- stage biogas digesters. Inter. Conf."State of Art on Biogas Technology
Transfer and Diffusion".NRC, Cairo, Egypt, Nov. 17 - 24.pp. 589 -599
Elsevier Applied Science Publications, London and New York.
3. Alaa El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A., El-Housseni, M.M., Ali, B.E. (1986).
“Biomass resources in Egypt and their potential uses for biogas generation
Inter Symposium on Application
of Solar and Renewable Energy ". Cairo,
Egypt, 23 -26 May.
4. Khalil, E.E., El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1988).Energy and water
requirements in agricultural operations. Diamond Jubilee Conference of Field
Irrigation and Agro climatology. pp. 311 - 322.
5. Alaa El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A., El-Brollosy, M.A. and Ali, B.E. (1988).
Evaluation of Chinese and Indian type digesters for biogas generation from
agricultural residues Cairo International Symposium on Renewable Energy
Sources. 13 -16 June, Cairo, Egypt.
6. Ishac, Y.Z., El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1988). Biogas production from
precomposted agricultural residues. International Symposium on Application
of Biotechnology for small Industries in Development Countries.Bangkok,
Thailand, 21 -24 September.
7.
El-Shimi, S.A., Ali, B.A. and El-Housseni, M.M. (1988). Research in the
technology of biogas production and its utilization in Egypt. Paper presented
at the International Symposium Sponsored by Canadian, Egypt, and Mc - Gill
Agricultural Response Program CEMARP. Sakha, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt,
Oct. 10 - 12.pp.76 - 82.
8. Alaa El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1988). Bioenergy from
food industrial wastes. Paper presented at "First Symposium on Optimal Use
of Food Industrial By Products in The Arab World". ESCWA, Baghdad, Iraq.
Nov.28 - Dec. 1. (In Arabic).
9. Ishac, Y.Z., Alaa El-Din M.N., El-Brollosy, M.A., El- Shimi,S.A. and Ali,
B.E. (1989). Biogas production from cow dung. Paper presented at "Fifth
International Symposium on Microbial Ecology".ISME, Aug. 27 to
Sep.1.Tokyo, Kyto, Japan.
10. Shehata, S.M. and Ali, B.E. (1990). Composting of municipal solid wastes
in Egypt. Agric. Res. Review. Vol. 68, No. 2 p.365-371.
11. El-Sayed, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1991). Bioconversion of cotton stalks to
protein enriched fermented fodder by white rot fungi. Egypt, J. Agric. Res., 69
(2)p. 481-488.
12. Shehata, S.M. And Ali, B.E. (1991). Amendment of Damietta windrow
compost by rock phosphate. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 69(2) p. 501-509.
13. Morsi H. Awatef., Ali, B.E. and Radwan Nabila. (1991). Nitrogen fixing
cyanobacteria as affected by the whole cultures and the culture filtrates of
Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and Bacillus sphoericus used as bioinsecticides. Zagazig J.Agric.Rec.Vol.18 (1) p.57- 67.
14. El-Shimi, S.A., El-Housseni, M., Ali, B.E. and El-Shinnawi,
M.M.(1992).Biogas generation from food - processing wastes.Resources,
Conservation and Recycling Vol.( 6 ) p.315 - 327.
15. El-Haggar, S.M. and Ali, B.E. (1993). Solar assisted biological treatment of
anaerobic digested cattle manure with Chlorella.Proceedings of "Third
International Conference On Renewable Energy Sources". Cairo Egypt,
Dec.29, 1992 .Jan.2, 1993 Vol.2 .p 425 - 439.
16. El-Haggar, S.M. and Ali, B.E. (1993). Utilization of poultry manure waste
through solar energy using Spirulina platensis.Proceedings of "Third International Conference On Renewable Energy Sources". Cairo Egypt Dec.29, 1992
.Jan.2, 1993,Vol. 2. p 449-460.
17. Shehata, S.M. and Ali, B.E. (1994). Co-composting of sludge and municipal
solid wastes.Egypt. J. Agric.Res.,72(3),616-626.
18. Morsi H. Awatef.; Ali, B.E.; Ghali Y. and El-Gabry I. Khadiga.(1994).
Bioconversion of sweet sorghum juice to ethanol by Saccaromyces cerevisiae.
Egypt. J. Appl. Sci.; 9 (5) p.631 -643.
19. Ali, B.E.; Hassanin Somaia.; Abu Senna ,M.A.and Kandil N.F.(1994).
Effect of irrigation with Bahr El-Baqr drain on: II-Health aspects associated
with crops. Communications in Science & Development Research. No.683,
Vol.46 p.113-129.
20. Zimmer, H.S.; Ali, B.E.; Amer ,A.E; Massoud ,F.I. and Ismail,
M.M.(1995). Composting of sewage sludge in greater Cairo.Paper Presented
at "The Second International Conference On Liquid Wastes Management.
Cairo Egypt March 19- 21..
21. Amer, A. E.; Ali, B.E. and El-Shimi , S.A.(1995). Bio-Chemical changes of
sewage sludge treated with quick lime and cement dust.Proceedings of The
Fifth International Conference Environmental Protection. Is A Must.
Alexandria Egypt, April.
22. El-Bassuoni, A.A; Sherif, H.O.; Gaber, A.H.; Sorour, M.H.and Ali,B.E.
(1995). Waste treatment in Egyptian Village "a case study".Paper presented at
"The International Energy, Environment and Economics Symposium the
University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria Australia, Nov.20-24.
23. El-Halwagi, M.M; Gaber,A.H; Safwat, M.S.A; Ali, B.E; El-Sayed, S.A
and Sherif, H.O. (1996). Utilization of food industrial wastes.Prosseding of
First International Conference On "Utilization and Recycling of Wastes".
Science and Technology Academy .Egypt , Cairo , June 16 - 17.p.225-239.
24. Abdel-Ghany,A.A; Marwad,I.A, Samir,A.El-Sayd and Ali,B.E.(2001).The
effect of two yeast strains or their extracts on Vibnes growth and cluster
quality of Thompson seedless.Assiut Journal of Agricultural Science,
Vol.32,No.1,p.215-224.
25. EL-Haggar, S.M.; S.M. Ahmed and Mona M. Hamdy (2004). Production
of Compost for Organic Agriculture Enriched with Natural Rocks.Egypt.J.
appl. Sci; (7B) 784 – 799.
26. S.M. Shehata, S. A. El Shimi, M.H. Elkattan, B.E. Ali, M. El-Housseini,
S.A. El-Sayed, M.S. Mahmoud, A.M. Zaki, Y. A. Hamdi and A.S. Elnawawy (2004). Integrated waste mangament for Rural Development in
Egypt. Journal of Environmental Scince and Health. Vol. A39, No. 2. pp. 341
– 349.
27. Y.G.M. Galal and B. E. Ali (2004). Biofertilization and Organic Farming
Approaches. Egypt J. Agric. Res., 99 - 175.
Experience in scientific application :
1. Alaa El - Din, M.N., El - Shimi, S.A. Mahmoud, M.H., Abdel - Aziz,
I.M., El- Housseni, M.m. and Ali, B.E. and Anton. G. (1982).Progress
report on the FAO / Moa project TCP / EGY0003 Biogas for rural population.
Presented to FAO. March.
2. Alaa El-Din, M.N., Hussain, Y.H., El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E.
(1983).Biogas technology from organic wastes of Army Camps as a source for
energy, manure and pollution control. (In Arabic) , Egypt December.
3. Alaa El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1983). Production of
energy and manure from rabbits wastes. Study prepared for "BARARY"
Company.(In Arabic) Egypt, December.
4. Khalil,E.E., Alaa El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A., Hanavy, M.,Abdel Aziz, I.,
El-Housseni, M. And Ali, B.E., Holdren J.and Carroll, F.(1986). Progress
report No.1 on "Village level energy technologies in irrigated agriculture.
Egypt .April.
5. Khalil, E.E., Alaa El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A., Hanavy, M.,Abdel Aziz,
I., El-Housseni, M., Ali, B.E., Holdren,J. and Carroll, F.(1986). Progress
Egypt, Nov.
6. Khalil, E.E., Alaa El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A.,Hanavy,M., Abdel Aziz,I.,
El-Housseni, M., Ali, B.E., Holdren,J. and Carroll, F. (1987). Progress
Egypt, Jan.
7. Alla El-Din, M.N., El-Shimi, S.A., Ali, B.E. and El- Housseni,M.(1987).
Progress report No.1 "Development of biogas digester for rural Egypt".
Presented to National Academy of Science. Egypt, Feb.32 p.
8. El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1988). Preliminary study of the feasibility for
introducing the biogas technology to Fayoum Governorate.(In Arabic), 13 p.
9. El-Shimi, S.A. and Ali, B.E. (1988). Preliminary study of biogas system in
Tokh - Tambasha village. Study case for livestock farm and households.
10. El-Shimi, S.A., Ali, B.E. and El-Housseni, M. (1988). Progress report No.2
on "Biogas technology for rural Egypt.Tokh - Tambasha village, Minufiya,
CEMARP.50 p.
11. Ali, B.E., El-Wekeel, A.F. and Shehata, S.M. (1988). Evaluation of dried
poultry manure as organic fertilizer. Report presented to " Eggland Farm for
Food Security" El- Zarka, Damietta. Jan.(In Arabic),21 p.
12. Ali, B.E., El - Sayed S.A. and El-Wekeel, A.F. (1988). Preliminary study of
"Drainage water and its reuse at Talkha". Study presented to " El-Nasar Co.
for Fertilizers and Chemical Industries ". Feb.(In Arabic),29.p.
13. Shehata, S.M. and Ali, B.E. (1988). Production of soil conditioners and
organic fertilizers from the agricultural residues. Report presented to "ElZahraa for Agricultural Development". August ,(in Arabic).27p
14. Ali, B.E. (1989). Production of organic fertilizers using Earth Worms.
Feasibility study presented to "El-Zahraa for Economical Development". Sep.
23 p.
15. El - Shimi, S.A., Ali, B.E. and El - Housseni .M. (1990). “Final Report on
development of biogas digester for rural Egypt” Presented to National
Academy of Science .Cairo, Egypt.June.34 p.
16. Ali, B.E and El-Haggar, S.M. (1990). Economics of recycling of agricultural
residues in South Tahreer Farm for production of biogas and manure .Report
presented to Desert Development Center (DDC),The American University in
Cairo (AUC), 10 p.
17. El-Haggar, S.M. and Ali, B.E.(1990). Waste recycling in the South ElTahreer Farm of the Desert Development Center, (DDC) The American
University in Cairo (AUC), 16 p.
18. Shehat, S.M. and Ali, B.E. (1991). Damietta Co - Compost Project.Report
presented to " Construction Management Consultant Sabbour associates ".
June, 29 p.
19. Ali, B.E. (1991). Recycling system of integrated plant, animal and fish
farming Report presented to Desert Development Center , AUC, 14 p.
20. El-Haggar, S.M. and Ali, B.E. (1993). An integrated system using renewable
resources for the development of new communities. Interdisciplinary Research
Activity, The American University in Cairo and Soils & Water Research
Institute, Agricultural Research Center.
21. Ali, B.E. and El-Shimi, S.A.(1993). Recycling of solid and liquid wastes in
Shams Safaga Hotel and Village to produce irrigation water bioenergy and
compost.
22. Shehata S. M. and Ali B. E. (1993). Evaluation of " FyreZyme "in
Biodegradation of Solid Wastes.Report presented to Environmental Quality
International (EQI) Egypt.27 p.
23. Shehata S. M. and Ali, B. E.(1994). Production of compost from municipal
solid wastes by Egyptian traditional method.Report presented to " The Desert
Development Institute, Japan.28 p.
24. El-Halwagi, M.M; Gaber,A.H; Safwat, M.S.; El-Sayed, S.A; Ali,B.E. and
Sherif, H.O.(1995). Study on recycling of food processing wastes in Egypt.
Study presented to Technical &Technological Consulting and Research Fund.
(TTCSRF) In Arabic,191 p, and English 172 p.
25. El-Halwagi, M.M; Gaber,A.H; Ali, B.E.; Safwat, M.S.; El-Sayed, S.A. and
Sherif, H.O.(1995). Review on "Septage co-composting and sullage treatment
in small Egyptian villages.Science & Technology Cooperation (Project 2630140.1) 180 p. In English.
26. El Shimi, S.A and Ali, B.E. (1997).Survey of the quantities and quality of
the agricultural residues and its utilizations. Report presented to "Arab
Organization of Agriculture and Development. (AOAD) 52 p. In (Arabic).
27. Shehta, S.M; Hamdi, A.M. and Ali. B.A. (1997). Production of Controlled
Microbial Compost for Organic farming. Case study presented to “ UGEOBA
“ El-Nobaria, 18 p. In Arabic.
28. Ali, B.E.(1998).Improvement of the quality of poultry manure compost
generated by Facco aerobic composting plant at Kalila Farm.Final report
presented to “ Kalila Farm for Poultry Production.”
29. Shehata, S.M. and Ali, B.E.(1999).Compost production , comparative
examination of data and reporting Presented to the Desert
Development Institute , Japan..
30. Shehata, S.M. and Ali, B.E.(1999). Production of Egyptian Compost.Final
report presented to “Egyptian Company for Agricultural Residues
Utilization “ (ECARU).
31. Ali,B.S.(1999). Production of aerobic compost from poultry wastes at MAB
Farm.El-Nahda , Alaxandria.
Books:
Shehata, S.M., El-Zanaty, M.R. and Ali, B.A. (1993). Organic Manure and New
Reclaimed Soils. El- Dar El- Arabia for Publications and Distributions. I.S.B.N :
977-258-038-1. 149 p. (In Arabic).
Pamphlets:
Ali, B.E. (1995). Organic manures, General Organization for Agricultural Culture . 31
p ( In Arabic ). I.S.B.N. 9-77-5-90-94-4 .
Ali, B.E. , Shehata, S.M. and Hamdi, Y.A. (1999). Production and Utilization for
Controlled Microbial Compost for Organic Farming. General Organization of
Agricultral Culture. In press ( In Arabic ).
Leaflets:
Ali, B.E. (1995). Organic manures, Central Administration of Agricultural Guidance (
In Arabic ). No. 242.
Ali, B.E. (1995). Compost Production, Rural Development Through Integrated
Wastes Mangement Project. (In Arabic).
TRAINING COURSES ATTENDED
1- Regional training course on "Fundamental Research on Microbial Biomass
Production With Relation to Environment " November, 1976.
2- International Training Course on "Advanced Training for Crop Farming
Techniques ", June 30 - September 19, 1980, Turin, Italy.
3- Regional training course on "Prospective of Technologies and Techniques
of Applied Microbiology and Waste Recycling ", March, 1982.
4- Workshop on “Renewable Energy for Desert Development”, Desert
Development Center, The American University in Cairo, Egypt April 26 30,1986.
5- Training course on "Solid Waste Management through Composting and
Sanitary Landfill ". Sponsored by WHO and Cairo Cleaning and
Beautification Authorities.Cairo, Egypt, March 29 - April 9, 1987.
6- Post Doctor Training on:" Biogas Technology with Special Reference, TwoPhase Anaerobic Fermentation and Biological Degradation of Heavy
Organic in Contaminated Soils ".Environmental Research Department ,
Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) Chicago, ILLINOI, USA. January 14 to
April 13,1990.
7- National Workshop on Effluent Reuse. Sponsored by National Organization
for Potable Water and Sanitary Drainage (NOPWASD), in Cooperation With
World Health Organization (WHO). Cairo 23 - 25 September, 1991.
8- International Training Course on “ Solid Waste Management and Night
Treatment II ” (Course ID : J-94-0011) at Tokyo , Japan Environmental
Sanitation Center , from May 23 to July 22 , 1994 Organized by The Japan
International Cooperation Agency
(JICA) under The International
Cooperation Program of The Government of Japan.
9- International Training Course on " Controlled Microbial Composting
Organic Farming ". Linz , Austria ,Nov. 2 - 9 , 1997.
SCIENTIFIC VISITS OUTSIDE EGYPT
Tokyo Japan May 23 to July 22 ,1994. To acquire knowledge and techniques about
various alternatives of solid waste treatment and disposal the training course program
include field practice on composting of solid wastes, incineration and sanitary land
filling. Also, field visit to waste water treatment systems.
Walt Disney World , Orlando , Florida , USA (12 - 14 March 1990. During
training at The IGT , I had the opportunity to visit The Experimental Test Unit at
WDW, Orlando, Florida .The research at the ETU focused on an integrated biomass
and waste anaerobic digestion process for pollutant removal biomass production and
high content of methane. The design and operation of the ETU has a high degree of
flexibility under Completely controlled parameters. The ETU design allows for
testing of different feeding materials, digester configuration and performance
The People's Republic of China (18 Nov. to 18 Dec. 1983).
Member
of
Egyptian Team organized by Ministry of Electricity and Energy, to visit small and
large scale biogas digesters generating electricity in Beijing, Jiangsu, Nanhuei,
Shanghai, guangzhou and Chengdu Sichuan Province.
Republic of India ( 7 - 14 Oct. 1981). During the FAO study tour the following
places and institutions were visited to investigate their activities in the field of biogas
research and technology:
1- New Delhi Province : (a) Ministry of Agric . (b) Indian Research Institute.
2- Lucknow Province : House hold biogas digesters.
3- Bangalor Province : University of Agric. Science.
4- Bombay Province : Khadi and Village Industries Commission.
Republic of the Philippines ( 27 Sep. - 7 Oct. 1981 ): During a FAO study tour to
the Philippines for visit the biogas activity in different farms. Following institutions
and places were visited : Manila Province, Cebu Province AntipoloHills, Maya Farm,
and Los Banos .The Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Research. The
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).
The People's Republic of China , ( 9 - 27 Sep. 1981): Within a study tour organized
by FAO and financed by FAO / MOA project "Biogas for Rural Population ".
Member of biogas researchers team to China, Philippines an India .The group visited
the biogas digesters in different places and Biogas Research Institutions, iBeijing,
Sichuan and Guanzhou Provinces.
Date: May 8th, 2005
Letter of Assignment
Dr. Bahgat Ali
It is our pleasure to appoint you as Wastewater Management Consultant for
Environmental Quality International to advise on the IRG “task 5 –
Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality Management” project.
Your level of effort will be a maximum of six (six) working days, starting from
May 9th 2005. Your remuneration will be a lumpsum gross daily rate of LE 600
(six hundred). Payment will be made no later than two weeks from the date of
submission of the EQI time sheet.
We look forward to a fruitful and long-lasting relationship.
Mostafa Saleh
Vice-President
Accepted:
Date :
____________________
5/9/2005
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INTERNATIONAL
(EQI)
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name: Maged M. Hamed
Date of Birth :
Nationality: Canadian/Egyptian
Profession : Environmental Engineer
Proposed Position on Team: Wastewater Management Consultant
KEY QUALIFICATIONS
A certified professional environmental engineer (Texas), with sixteen years of experience in consulting,
research and development, and teaching in the environmental technology and policy fields. Proven track record
in the design, development, coordination, analysis, and management of complex environmental engineering
projects. In-depth understanding of the intricate technical and policy aspects in environmental conservation and
management applications in the energy, industrial, infrastructure, and tourism sectors.
Provided consultancy in the environmental technology and policy fields for projects with investments of more
than US$ 5 billion. These projects span a number of countries including USA, Canada, Australia, Nigeria,
Russia, Azerbaijan, Angola, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait, and Egypt. Participated in one of the largest
US research projects on the assessment and design of innovative waste remediation technologies for
contaminated sites. This multi-stakeholders project was funded by the US Department of Defense for
US$ 20 million and covered technological, economic, logistical, and policy aspects, and resulted in the
production of a comprehensive remediation design manual for contaminated sites. Developed a number of
Environmental Impact Statements for major projects in Australia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Angola, Kuwait, Yemen,
and Egypt, and currently act an EIA reviewer for the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency. Pioneered the
development and application of a novel methodology in public health risk assessment and was the first to use
the reliability methods in that field, which is computationally more efficient than the classic simulation methods
and provides valuable stochastic sensitivity information. This research was funded by the US Environmental
Protection Agency. Developed a computer program used by a number of oil and gas companies for the
assessment of the risk based screening levels of crude oil concentrations in soil for residential and commercial
land uses, and conducted software training and technical support for the software. Completed a large scale
computer modeling of the transport and fate of petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in northern Kuwait
resulting from the Gulf War, and assessed the potential for long term impact on freshwater resources.
Developed and delivered a number of short training courses to industrial and regulatory participants in the US
and Egypt on environmental management and conservation topics. Published more than twenty five articles on
various environmental technology and policy issues, and presented more than twenty contributed and invited
lectures on environmental topics. Acted as the lead consultant in developing the first cleaner production policy
framework in Egypt.
Honors and awards: Election to the Sigma Xi scientific honorary society, USA, (1995); Eleanor and Mills
Bennett Fellowship in Hydrology, Rice University, USA, (1993–1995); Civil Engineering Outstanding Service
Award, University of California, Irvine, USA, (1990).
EDUCATION
1997–1998
University of Saint Thomas
Houston, Texas, USA
MBA course work
1995
Rice University,
Houston, Texas, USA
Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering
1990
M.Sc. in Civil Engineering
1987
B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
EXPERIENCE RECORD
2001 - Present
Position: Freelance Environmental Consultant
Cairo, Egypt
2001 - Present
Position: Associate Professor of
Environmental and Sanitary Engineering
Environmental & Sanitary Engineering Lab
Department of Public Works
Faculty of Engineering
Cairo University,
Egypt
2001 - Present
Position: Lecturer
American University in Cairo,
Egypt
1998 - 2000
Position: Lecturer, Environmental Science
& Engineering
Rice University, Houston,
Texas, USA
1996 - 2000
Position: Senior Research Engineer
Environmental Conservation Group,
Exxon Mobil Upstream Research Co.
Houston, Texas, USA
1995 - 1996
Position: Post-doctoral Research Associate
Environmental Science & Engineering Dept
and the Center for Research
on Parallel Computation (joint appointment
Texas, USA
1994 - 1996
Position: Instructor
Energy & Environmental Systems Institute
Texas, USA
1991 - 1995
Position: Research Assistant
Environmental Science & Engineering Dept
Texas, USA
1990 – 199!
Position: Teaching Assistant
Environmental & Water Resources Program
Texas, USA
1990
Position: Design Engineer
Talaat Consulting Engineering
Cairo, Egypt
1989
Misr Consult
Cairo, Egypt
1987 - 1989
Space Consultants
Cairo, Egypt
1985
Position: Engineering Intern
Marples International Ltd.,
Bath, The United Kingdom
1983
Position: Engineering Intern
Nelissen Beheer, B.V.
Heeswijk-Dinther, The Netherlands
REPRESENTATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
Environmental Impact Assessment of Major Projects, Egypt.
Acted as the project manager or team leader in a number of EIA studies in Egypt, including: Cairo International
Airport’s Terminal building (3), new runway, and new cargo facility; Beni Suef sanitary landfill; Sewerage and
dewatering system of Esna; Sukari Gold Mine; Marsa Alam’s wastewater treatment plant
Environmental Impact Assessment of Coal Mining Operations, Australia.
Assessed the potential environmental impact of coal mining and coal loading operations in western Australia.
Evaluated the surface and ground water monitoring program used to accomplish this task, and assessed the
quality of collected data. Reviewed the groundwater modeling work and contamination risk assessment
conducted for the sites. Identified data gaps and devised additional data collection and chemical analyses.
Environmental Impact Assessment for Offshore Drilling, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Angola.
Coordinated and co-developed the marine pollution abatement and oil spill contingency planning report for
offshore drilling activities. Modeled the trajectory and fate of the potential oil spills, based on formal risk
assessment, using the model OILMAP, to simulate the oil movement and distribution among the environmental
compartments. Evaluated, analyzed and documented the results of the model, and determined the potential
impacts that may result from oiling of environmentally sensitive resources.
Environmental Impact Assessment for Capopa-Malanje Hydropower Plant, Angola.
Assessed the design and method of rehabilitation of the 250 kW hydropower plant together with its associated
hydraulics works (diversion weir, surge tank, pipeline, discharge canal, etc.) with a flow passing through the
turbine of 1 m³/s at a head of 25 m.
Assessment of Recycling Potential for Demolition Waste, Saudi Arabia.
Conducted an assessment of the potential of reuse/recycling of waste resulting from the demolition of the
business and community quarters, North and South areas, for Al-Khafji Joint Operations Company, Khafji,
Saudi Arabia. The study included waste characterization and inventory, assessment of hazardous components,
site surveys, and reporting.
Development of Cleaner Production Policy Framework in Egypt.
Served as the local environmental consultant in a multi-stakeholder project funded by the Finnish International
Development Agency (FinnIDA), in cooperation with the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, to develop a
policy framework to encourage the uptake of Cleaner Production by the Egyptian Industries.
Modeling Fate and Transport of Petroleum Hydrocarbon, Kuwait.
Completed a large scale computer modeling project to identify the regional ground water flow pattern, and to
model the transport and fate of petroleum hydrocarbon resulting from the Gulf War in Kuwait. Assessed the
short and long term potential impacts of the hydrocarbon on the freshwater resources in the Raudhatain and
Umm Al-Aish regions in northern Kuwait.
Modeling Fate and Transport of Brine Disposal, Red Sea, Egypt.
Conducted computer modeling for the fate and transport of the disposed concentrated brine (280,000 ppm) into
the Red Sea in Egypt. Identified the optimal disposal location, and proposed marine outfall design to minimize
the potential impacts on coral reefs downstream from the discharge point.
Solid Waste Management System, Saudi Arabia.
Developed the solid waste management system for Beni Najjar District, Eastern Madinah, Saudi Arabia, serving
a population of 83,000 in a 24.4 ha area in a densely populated zone around the Prophet's Mosque.
Sanitary landfill design in Suez and Fayoum Governorates.
Carried out the conceptual, preliminary, and final design and tender documents for two sanitary landfills in Suez
and Fayoum. Devised operational plans, management system, and staff training programs.
Risk Assessment of Solid Waste Transportation, Beni Suef.
Managed the and coordinated the preparation of a risk assessment for the municipal solid waste transportation
across the river Nile aboard a ferry in Beni Suef, commissioned by Plancenter LTD.
Public Health Risk Assessment Studies, USA.
Served in a joint industry workgroup to evaluate current regulations for managing exploration and production
contaminated sites. Participated in the development of the spread sheet used by the participating companies for
calculating the risk-based screening levels of crude oil concentrations in soil for residential and commercial
land uses. Calibrated and validated the software, and conducted in-house training and provided software
technical support.
Optimization of Multi-billion Dollar Oil and Gas Investment Portfolios, Canada and Nigeria.
Developed complex mixed-integer nonlinear optimization models for the strategic planning and management of
oil and gas investment portfolio that combine physical models to represent the reservoir and surface structures
and economic models to represent the revenues, operating and capital expenses, royalty, taxes, and tariffs.
Oil Spill Emergency Response, USA.
Served as the environmental fate and effects advisor in the USA Emergency Response Team for ExxonMobil
oil company. Participated in two oil spill drills, in South Carolina and California. Modeled the fate and
trajectory of the simulated oil release, coordinated the data gathering phase during the progress of the drill, and
exchanged vital toxicological information with the tracking and surveillance advisor. Communicated to the
mechanical recovery advisor, the dispersant application advisor, and shoreline protection advisor the likely
behavior and fate of spilled oil and the resources potentially affected. The information was used to optimally
prioritize resource conservation and devise a response strategy.
Environment, Safety, and Operations Integrity Training, USA.
Served as the Training Coordinator for Environment, Safety, and Operations Integrity (ES&OI) for ExxonMobil
oil company. Acted as the technical link between the executive training steering committee, the affiliates
regional training contacts, and the course coordinators. Collected data on major and minor training needs for the
company’s affiliates worldwide, identified training gaps, and recommended modifications to the ES&OI
curriculum architecture. Evaluated the existing training options provided by vendors and recommended an
approach to either adopt a course, revise an existing one, or develop a new one.
Oil Spill Trajectory and Fate Models Evaluation, USA.
Developed an evaluation process for eight oil spill trajectory and fate computer models considered by
ExxonMobil affiliates worldwide. Designed the suite of test problems for the trajectory, fate, and stochastic
modules. Designed checklists to test various aspects of the models, such as the model’s ease of use, hardware
requirement, the speed of the model runs, visual quality of model results and graphic user interface, the
capability of the model’s geographic information system, the level of vendor support, and the model’s
robustness and stability. Prepared the final technical report.
Optimal Subsurface Remediation Design, Houston, USA.
Led a research team in a project funded by the Center for Research on Parallel Computation (CRCP), Houston,
to develop a computer model for optimal design of subsurface remediation of hazardous waste sites. The
simulation-optimization framework was formulated using the novel interior-point nonlinear programming
approach.
Waste Management Plan Development, Russia.
Developed the waste management plan for the oil spill contingency plan for oil spill drilling operations in
eastern Russia. Identified potential wastes generated from similar response operations, and classified the wastes
based on the response operation (booming, skimming, dispersant application) and waste type (oily, non-oily;
liquid, solid). Analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of each disposal option, based on economics,
logistics, and regulatory compliance. Identified and documented the optimal management options for handling,
storing, treating, and disposing of the generated waste.
Innovative Technology for Groundwater and Soil Remediation, Utah, USA.
Participated in a project on the design of innovative groundwater remediation technology at Hill Air Force
Base, Utah. The project evaluated a number of evolving remediation technologies, such as surfactant
solubilization and mobilization, complexing sugar flushing, cosolvent flushing, and steam remediation.
Participated in computer modeling, statistical analysis, and data management, and participated in the technical
editing of the resulting design guidance manual.
Improved Organic Contaminant Dissolution Model Development, Houston, USA.
Co-develop a computer model for the dissolution of residually trapped, mass-transfer limited, organic
chemicals. The model provided a better fit for experimental and field data while requiring fewer parameters
than the more widely used multi-site model. Coordinated and supervised the development of the mathematical
construct, and the model development in Matlab. Validated the model against soil column data for the
dissolution of BTX and Naphthalene in Tridecane.
Novel Stochastic Human Health Assessment Mode Development, Houston, USA.
Developed a novel methodology in stochastic public health risk assessment and was the first to use the first- and
second-order reliability methods in this field. Designed and developed a computer program to calculate the
incremental lifetime cancer risk resulting from exposure to carcinogenic chemicals. The program accounted for
parameter uncertainty in exposure and transport/fate parameters through the reliability analysis. Validated the
developed model on a number of case studies and published the results in peer-reviewed journals and an EPA
report.
Wastewater Project Design, Egypt.
Designed the sanitary engineering work for Zumurada and Sahara tourist resorts in Egypt along the
Mediterranean coast. Calculated the amount of wastewater that would likely be generated from the village,
including domestic sewage and storm water. Designed the wastewater collection network as a gravity flow
system, the pumping station and rising main and characterized the maximum loading on the treatment system.
Developed specifications for the compact units used for the waste treatment. Supervised the preparation of all
the detailed engineering drawings.
Water Resources Planning Projects, Egypt.
Studied the water resources for the urban planning extension of the cities of Ismailia, New Assuit , and
Damanhour, Egypt. The study was conducted for the Egyptian Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning.
Estimated the water requirement for residential, industrial, and commercial usage and conducted the
preliminary analysis of each resource. Identified the sustainable water resource for each project and designed
the water intake works for each project. Recommended a water treatment train for the projects.
LANGUAGES
Reading
Writing
Speaking
Arabic
English
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
TRAINING
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Confrontational Strategies Training for Selected Disaster Management (Environmental Disaster
Management Units in the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency and various departments in the
Competent Administrative Authorities)
Introduction to Environmental Management: Water Module (Ministry of Water Resources & Irrigation,
Naga Hammadi Project)
Fundamentals of Corrosion in Industrial Processes (Al-Ezz Industrial Group, Egypt)
Environmental Awareness (Gulf of Suez Oil Co GUPCO, Egypt)
Design and Operation of Water Treatment Plants (The American University in Cairo, Egypt)
Water and Soil Pollution (Cairo University, Egypt)
Remediation of Contaminated Sites (Dept. of Environmental Quality, Richmond, Virginia)
Chemical Transport & Fate in the Environment (Rice University, Houston, Texas)
Oil Spill Contingency Planning and Response (ExxonMobil Company, Houston, Texas)
Groundwater Hydrology and Contaminant Transport Modeling (Rice University, Houston, Texas)
Public Health Engineering (ExxonMobil Company, Houston, Texas, and Cairo University, Egypt)
Environmental Management Planning (ExxonMobil Company, Houston, Texas)
Marine Pollution Control (ExxonMobil Company, Houston, Texas)
PUBLICATIONS
Peer-Reviewed Journals
In review Hamed, M. M., “Screening level modeling of long-term impact of petroleum hydrocarbon
contamination on fresh groundwater lenses in the Arabian Gulf region,” Environmental Modeling &
Software.
Hamed, M. M., Hassan, A. N., and Sherif, Y., “Risk assessment as a tool in environmental impact
assessment: a case study of solid waste transportation across the Nile in Egypt,” Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisa.
Hamed, M. M., M. G. Khalafallah, and E. A. Hassanien, “Prediction of wastewater treatment plant
performance using artificial neural networks,” Environmental Modeling & Software.
2003 Hamed, M.M. and M. Z. El-Beshry. Uncertainty analysis in surface water quality modeling. Submitted to
the journal Environmental Modeling and Software.
El-Beshry, M.Z. and Hamed, M.M. Stochastic sensitivity analysis of contaminant transport in the
subsurface. Submitted to the Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cairo University.
Hamed, M.M. and El-Beshry, M.Z. Application of first-order reliability method to modeling fate and
transport of dissolved contaminants in groundwater. Submitted to the journal Environmetrics.
2002 Hamed, M. M., and El Mahgary, Y., “A policy framework for cleaner production in Egypt,” Journal of
Cleaner Production, accepted for publication.
2000 Hamed, M. M., “Stochastic modeling concepts in groundwater and risk assessment: potential application
to marine problems,” Spill Science & Technology Bulletin, 6(2), 125–132.
Hamed, M. M., Nelson, P. D. and Bedient, P. B., “A distributed site model for non-equilibrium
dissolution of multicomponent residually trapped NAPL”, Environmental Modeling and Software, 15(5),
443–450.
Hamed, M. M., “Impact of random variables probability distribution on public health risk assessment
from contaminated soil”, Journal of Soil Contamination, 9(2), 99–117.
1999 Hamed, M. M., “Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of public health risk assessment from contaminated
soil,”, Journal of Soil Contamination, 8(3), 285–306.
1997 Hamed, M. M. and Bedient, P. B., “On the performance of computational methods for the assessment of
risk from ground-water contamination,” Ground Water, 35(4), 638–646.
Hamed, M. M., “First-order reliability analysis of public health risk assessment,” Risk Analysis, 17(2),
177–185.
Hamed, M. M. and Bedient, P. B., “On the effect of probability distributions of input variables in public
health risk assessment,” Risk Analysis, 17(1), 97–105.
1996 Hamed, M. M., Bedient, P. B., and Conte, J. P., “Numerical stochastic analysis of groundwater
contaminant transport and plume containment,” Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 24(1), 1–24.
Hamed, M. M., Bedient, P. B., and Dawson, C. N., “Probabilistic modeling of aquifer heterogeneity
using reliability methods,” Advances in Water Resources, 19(5), 277–295.
1995 Hamed, M. M., Conte, J. P., and Bedient, P. B., “Probabilistic screening tool for groundwater
contamination assessment,” Journal of Environmental Engineering, 121(11): 767-775.
Conference Proceedings
•
•
El Mahgary, Y. and Hamed, M. M., “A Framework for a National Strategy to Implement and Encourage
Cleaner Production,” (in Arabic) in Proceedings of the Cleaner Production Workshop, Egyptian
Environmental Policy Program, Cairo, Egypt, May 12, 2002.
Hamed, M. M. and El Mahgary, Y. “Outline of a national strategy for cleaner production: the case of
Egypt”, in Proceedings of the Cleaner Production Symposium (CP7) CP7, organized by The Czech
Government, UNEP and UNIDO, Prague, 28–29 April 2002.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hamed, M. M., El-Beshry, M. Z., and El-Bakry, A. S. “Reliability assessment of parameter uncertainty
effect on soil vapor extraction cleanup time”, in proceedings of the Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic
Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, National Ground Water
Association/American Petroleum Institute, Anaheim, California, November 15–17, 2000, pp. 214–226.
Kerr, J. M., Hamed, M. M., Melton, H. R., McMillen, S. J., Magaw, R. I., and Naughton, D., “Risk-based
screening levels for crude oils: the role of polyaromatic hdrocarbons,” in Proceedings of the International
Petroleum Environmental Conference, Houston, Texas, November 16–18, 1999.
Hamed, M. M., “Assessment of uncertainty in groundwater monitoring network design”, in: Proceedings
of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and
Restoration, National Ground Water Association/American Petroleum Institute, Houston, Texas, November
11–13, 1998, pp. 70-77.
Hamed, M. M. and Bedient, P. B., “Applications of reliability methods for probabilistic risk assessment,” in
Proceedings of the 24th ASCE Annual Water Resources Planning and Management Conference, Houston,
Texas, April 1997, pp. 340–345.
Hamed, M. M., and Bedient, P. B., “Uncertainty analysis of natural attenuation in ground water systems,”
in Proceeding of the 4th International In-Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, Battelle, San Diego,
California, April, 1997, pp. 43–48.
Holder, A. W., Hamed, M. M., and Bedient, P. B., “Evaluation of reaeration using a 3-D ground water
transport model,” in Proceeding of the 4th International In-Situ and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium,
Battelle, San Diego, California, April, 1997, pp. 75–80.
Hamed, M. M., Bedient, P. B., and Conte, J. P., “Probabilistic modeling of contaminant transport in the
subsurface,” in: Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrogeologists Conference: Solutions
‘95, Edmonton, Canada, June 4–10, 1995.
Hamed, M. M., Bedient, P. B., and Conte, J. P., “Probabilistic exposure assessment using first- and secondorder reliability methods,” in EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 1993 Fall Meeting,
San Francisco, California, December 6–10, 1993, p. 252, (published abstract).
Hamed, M. M., Bedient, P. B., and Conte, J. P., “Reliability approach to the probabilistic modeling of
groundwater flow and transport,” in: Proceedings of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Organic Chemicals in
Ground Water: Prevention, Detection, and Restoration, National Ground Water Association/American
Petroleum Institute, Houston, Texas, November, 1993, pp. 317–332.
Bedient, P. B., Burgess, K. S., Fisher R. T., and Hamed, M. M., “Biodegradation modeling with application
to sandy versus silty aquifers,” in Proceedings of the Symposium on In-Situ Bioremediation, Environment
Canada/Waterloo Center for Groundwater Research , Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, Canada, September,
1992.
Other Written Works
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hamed, M. M., Modeling Fate and Transport of Hydrocarbon Contamination in Raudhatain and Umm AlAish Water Well Fields, Kuwait, unpublished report submitted to the Kuwait Institute for Scientific
Research, Kuwait, April, 2002.
Hamed, M. M., Policy Framework for Cleaner Production in Egypt-PART I: Background, Motivation,
Industry Role & Success Stories, unpublished report submitted to the Egyptian Pollution Abatement Project
(EPAP), the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Cairo, March 2002.
Hamed, M. M., Policy Framework for Cleaner Production in Egypt-PART II: Strategy of Cleaner
Production Application, unpublished report submitted to the Egyptian Pollution Abatement Project (EPAP),
the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Cairo, March 2002.
Hamed, M. M. and Bedient, P. B., Reliability-based Uncertainty Analysis of Groundwater Contaminant
Transport and Remediation. EPA/600/R-99/028, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, June 1999.
Hamed, M. M., Conte, J. P., and Bedient, P. B., “Uncertainty analysis of subsurface transport of reactive
solutes using reliability methods,” Chapter 8 in: Groundwater Models for Resources Analysis and
Management, Aly I. El-Kadi (Editor), Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan, 1995.
Hamed, M. M., Non-linear Programming Technique Applied to the Optimal Design of Wastewater
Collection Networks, M.Sc. thesis, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt, January, 1990.
SELECTED INVITED LECTURES
•
Shell Global Solutions, Cheshire Innovation Park, “Assessing Risk from Crude Oil at Exploration and
Production Sites”, Chester, UK, November 2002.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Tennessee, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, “Application of Reliability
Methods to Groundwater Flow and Transport and Public Health Risk Assessment,” Knoxville, Tennessee,
February 2002.
Shell Global Solutions, Westhollow Research Center, “Some Quantitative Techniques in Decision Making
Processes in the Oil and Gas Industry,” Houston, Texas, January 2002.
Petrobel Oil Company, “Environmental Management Planning Processes in the Petroleum Sector,” Cairo,
Egypt, December, 2001.
Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research (KISR), “Hydrocarbon Pollution in Groundwater and Soil:
Monitoring, Modelling and Remediation Technology,” Kuwait, November 2001.
The 4th International Environmental Marine Modeling Seminar, SINTEF, “Inverse reliability in marine
pollution and public health risk assessment,” Athens, Greece, October 2000.
Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, SIAM Annual Meeting 2000, “Optimization application in
stochastic risk assessment,” Puerto Rico, July, 2000.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 24th Annual Water Resources Planning and Management
Conference, Houston, Texas, “Application of Reliability Methods for Probabilistic Risk Assessment,”
April, 1997.
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, “Reliability-Based
uncertainty analysis of groundwater contaminant transport and remediation,” June, 1996.
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, “Risk
analysis of subsurface transport and remediation,” July, 1996.
Colloquium of the Statistics Department, Rice University, Houston, Texas, “uncertainty analysis of
groundwater systems,” September, 1995.
The Computational Mathematics Awareness Workshop, sponsored by the Center for Research on Parallel
Computation, Rice University, Houston, Texas, “The role of computational and applied mathematics in
dealing with environmental pollution issues,” August, 1995.
Energy and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI) first annual symposium, Houston, Texas, “Applications
of reliability methods for the analysis of subsurface contamination,” May 1995.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
Member, Oil Spill Science and Technology Work Group, American Petroleum Institute, 1996–1999
Member, Groundwater Management Committee, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1995–2000
Environmental Fate and Effects Advisor, ExxonMobil Emergency Response Team, USA, 1996–1999
Member, Society for Risk Analysis, USA, 1995–1999
Member, National Ground Water Association, USA, 1991–2000
Date: May 8th, 2005
Letter of Assignment
Dr. Maged Hamed
It is our pleasure to appoint you as Wastewater Management Consultant for
Environmental Quality International to advise on the IRG “task 5 –
Environmental Services for Improving Water Quality Management” project.
Your level of effort will be a maximum of six (6) working days starting from
May 9th 2005. Your remuneration will be a lumpsum gross daily rate of LE 800
(eight hundred). Payment will be made no later than two weeks from the date
of submission of the EQI time sheet.
We look forward to a fruitful and long-lasting relationship.
Mostafa Saleh
Vice-President
Accepted:
Date :
____________________
5/9/2005