Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria Deliverable#15

3333333333333333333333333333
USAID-Funded Municipal Services Program

Planning and Engineering Services for Master
Plan in Peshawar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa:
Drinking Water, Sanitation/Storm Water and
Solid Waste Services
Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria Report No. 15
(November - 2013)
Prepared by:
National Development Consultants (Pvt.) Limited, Pakistan.

House No. 15-D/A-1, Circular Road, University Town, Peshawar, Pakistan.
In Association with:
MWH Global, Inc. USA.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 1
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 5
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................. 5
1.3 OVERVIEW OF MASTER PLAN CRITERIA..................................................................................... 6
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................... 6
2.0 POPULATION PROJECTIONS IN PMPP AREA ................................................. 7
2.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT ACCORDING TO 1998
CENSUS..................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 AFGHAN INFLUX AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLES LIVING IN THE
PESHAWAR CITY .................................................................................................................................. 9
2.4 AREAS OF 21 RURAL UCS FULLY OR PARTIALLY INCLUDED IN THE PMPP AREA .... 9
2.5 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2032 .............................................................. 10
2.6 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF PESHAWAR................................................................................ 14
2.7 RATIONAL FOR POPULATION PROJECTION OF THE PMPP AREA ................................ 16
2.8 PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITY IN VARIOUS UCS OF THE STUDY AREAS IN
2032 .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.9 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 25
2.10 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 25
3.0 DRINKING WATER SYSTEM .............................................................................. 26
3.1 GOVERNING WATER SYSTEM POLICIES & GUIDELINES ..................................................... 26
3.1.1 Planning Policy .......................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.1.2 Design Policy ............................................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2 TYPES OF SERVICE .............................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.1 Domestic ................................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.2 Commercial and Industrial .................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.3 Public Use .................................................................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.4 Household Connections........................................................................................................................................ 28
3.2.5 Communal Taps....................................................................................................................................................... 28
3.3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTION ................................................................................................... 28
3.3.1 Domestic Demand .................................................................................................................................................. 29
3.3.2 Non-Domestic Demand ........................................................................................................................................ 29
3.3.3 Peaking Factors ........................................................................................................................................................ 30
3.4 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE CRITERIA .................................................................................... 31
3.4.1 Operating Pressures and Pressure Zone Characteristics............................................................................. 31
3.4.2 Maximum Velocities and Head losses ................................................................................................................ 31
3.4.3 Storage Requirements ............................................................................................................................................ 32
3.5 GENERAL WATER SYSTEM LAYOUT CRITERIA ...................................................................... 32
3.5.1 Horizontal and Vertical Layout............................................................................................................................ 32
3.5.2 Easements.................................................................................................................................................................. 33
3.5.3 Utility Crossings ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
3.6 DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................... 34
3.6.1 Minimum Distribution Main Sizing and Valve Spacing .................................................................................... 34
Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

November, 2013 i
3.6.2 Pipelines ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.6.3 Valves.......................................................................................................................................................................... 36
3.6.4 Meters ........................................................................................................................................................................ 36
3.6.5 Chlorinators ............................................................................................................................................................. 37
3.6.6 Manholes.................................................................................................................................................................... 37
3.6.7 Backflow Prevention Assemblies ......................................................................................................................... 37
3.6.8 Tracer Wire and Warning Tape ......................................................................................................................... 37
3.6.9 Main-Break Swale Design ...................................................................................................................................... 37
3.6.10 Future Pipe Connections....................................................................................................................................... 37
3.6.11 Pump Station/Tubewell Chambers ..................................................................................................................... 37
3.7 STORAGE TANK ................................................................................................................................. 39
3.7.1 Site of the Storage Tank ........................................................................................................................................ 39
3.7.2 Structural Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
3.8 TUBEWELLS........................................................................................................................................... 39
3.8.1 Total Dynamic Head............................................................................................................................................... 39
3.8.2 Friction Losses in Conduits .................................................................................................................................. 39
3.8.3 Suction Head ............................................................................................................................................................ 39
3.9 WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES .................................................................................................. 40
3.10 LITERATURE CONSULTED .............................................................................................................. 40
4.0 SANITATION/STORMWATER SYSTEM ........................................................... 49
4.1 GOVERNING POLICES & GUIDELINES ........................................................................................ 49
4.1.1 Planning Policy .......................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.2 TYPES OF SERVICES............................................................................................................................ 50
4.2.1 Household Connections........................................................................................................................................ 50
4.2.2 Septic Tanks .............................................................................................................................................................. 50
4.2.3 Latrines ...................................................................................................................................................................... 50
4.3 DESIGN FLOWS ................................................................................................................................... 50
4.3.1 Wastewater Design Flow ...................................................................................................................................... 50
4.3.2 Storm Water Design Flow .................................................................................................................................... 52
4.3.3 Runoff ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53
4.4 HYDRAULIC DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 54
4.5 WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEM LAYOUT CRITERIA ................................. 55
4.5.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................................................... 55
4.5.2 Horizontal Layout ................................................................................................................................................... 55
4.5.3 Vertical Layout ......................................................................................................................................................... 55
4.5.4 Easements.................................................................................................................................................................. 55
4.6 DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................... 55
4.6.1 Open Channel Storm Drains ............................................................................................................................... 55
4.6.2 Gravity Pipeline-Material, Sizes and Grades ..................................................................................................... 57
4.6.3 Lift Stations ............................................................................................................................................................... 59
4.6.4 Force Mains............................................................................................................................................................... 61
4.6.5 Manholes.................................................................................................................................................................... 62
4.6.6 Future Connections ................................................................................................................................................ 63
4.6.7 Sanitary Sewer Service Lines ................................................................................................................................ 63
4.6.8 Clean-outs ................................................................................................................................................................. 63
4.6.9 Ventilation of Sewers ............................................................................................................................................. 64
4.6.10 Gullies or Catch Pits .............................................................................................................................................. 64

November, 2013 ii
4.6.11 Sand/Oil and Grease Interceptors ...................................................................................................................... 64
4.7 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................ 64
4.7.1 Wastewater influent Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 64
4.7.2 Septage Characteristics.......................................................................................................................................... 66
4.7.3 Wastewater Discharge Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 67
4.7.4 Sludge and Septage Disposal Criteria................................................................................................................. 69
5.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ........................................................ 70
5.1 GOVERNING LEGISLATION, POLICIES & GUIDELINES......................................................... 70
5.1.1 Existing Legal Framework on Solid Waste Management .............................................................................. 70
5.1.2 Policy – Planning, Design, Construction, Operation ...................................................................................... 70
5.1.3 Guidelines for Solid Waste Management .......................................................................................................... 71
5.2 CURRENT AND FUTURE DEMAND ............................................................................................. 71
5.2.1 Current Demand ..................................................................................................................................................... 71
5.2.2 Peaking Factors ........................................................................................................................................................ 71
5.2.3 Future Demand ........................................................................................................................................................ 71
5.3 LEVELS OF SERVICE ............................................................................................................................ 73
5.3.1 Staging Strategy ........................................................................................................................................................ 73
5.3.2 Stage 1 Levels of Service ....................................................................................................................................... 73
5.4 APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES AND SITING CRITERIA .................................................... 75
5.4.1 Primary Collection .................................................................................................................................................. 75
5.4.2 Secondary Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 76
5.4.3 Secondary Storage (Containers) Siting Criteria .............................................................................................. 76
5.4.4 Secondary Collection Technology Criteria ...................................................................................................... 77
5.4.5 Street widths and Vehicles .................................................................................................................................... 77
5.4.6 Street Cleaning Criteria ........................................................................................................................................ 78
5.4.7 Litter Bins Criteria .................................................................................................................................................. 79
5.4.8 Transfer Stations Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 79
5.4.9 Reduction of Waste and Maximization of Waste Recovery Criteria ........................................................ 80
5.5 DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA.................................................... 81
5.5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 81
5.5.2 Siting Criteria for Composting and Landfill Facilities ..................................................................................... 81
5.5.3 Landfill Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................................... 87
5.5.4 Composting Plant Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 87
5.5.5 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Criteria ................................................................................................................... 87
5.6 WORKSHOPS ....................................................................................................................................... 88
5.7 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM................................................................................... 88
6.0 COMMUNITY FACTORS ..................................................................................... 90
6.1 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING COMMUNITY FACTORS ....................................... 90
6.1.1 Focus Group Discussions ...................................................................................................................................... 90
6.1.2 Socio-economic Baseline Survey ......................................................................................................................... 90
6.2 WATER SUPPLY ................................................................................................................................... 91
6.2.1 Access to Drinking Water .................................................................................................................................... 91
6.2.2 Drinking Water Quality......................................................................................................................................... 93
6.3 SOLID WASTE, SANITATION, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM .................................................... 94
6.4 INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................... 95
6.4.1 Service and Repairs ................................................................................................................................................. 95

November, 2013 iii
6.4.2 Paying for Services .................................................................................................................................................. 98
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MASTER PLAN .............................................................................. 99
6.5.1 Water Supply............................................................................................................................................................ 99
6.5.2 Drainage and Sanitation ....................................................................................................................................... 100
6.5.3 Solid Waste Management .................................................................................................................................... 100
6.5.4 Institutional Strengthening .................................................................................................................................. 100
6.5.5 Education, Knowledge and System Sustainability .......................................................................................... 101
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Distribution of UC Wise Population for the Peshawar District .............................................................. 7
Table 2-2 Details of Rural UCs Included Fully or Partially in the Study Area ....................................................... 10
Table 2-3 Growth Rates used in Past and On-Going Studies.................................................................................... 10
Table 2-4 Population Projection for Urban & Rural UCs of the Study Area for 2022 and 2032..................... 11
Table 2-5 Population Projections for the Urban UCs of the Study Area ............................................................... 11
Table 2-6 Projected Population of the Rural UCs of the Study Area ..................................................................... 13
Table 2-7 Details of Private Sector Housing Schemes in the Peshawar District .................................................. 15
Table 2-8 Urban UCs Distribution on the Basis of %age Open Area and Current Densities .......................... 17
Table 2-9 Projected Population on the Basis of Accommodating the Future Urban Population Growth
within the Limits of the Same UC ................................................................................................................... 20
Table 2-10 Projected Population on the Basis of Accommodating the Future Rural Population Growth
within the Limits of the Same UC ................................................................................................................... 22
Table 2-11 Projected Population on the Basis of Keeping Constant Populated Area and Density of UC
Falling in Category 1, 2 & 3 ............................................................................................................................... 23
Table 2-12 Projected Population of 40 No. UCs (Urban + Rural) on the Basis of Accommodating the
Additional Population of 27 Urban Category 1, 2, & 3 UCs on the Ratio of Proportionate of
Open Areas ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3-1 Water Demand Criteria (lpcd) ....................................................................................................................... 29
Table 3-2 Institutional Demand ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 3-3 Institutional Demand ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Table 3-4 Peaking Factors of Water Consumption ...................................................................................................... 31
Table 3-5 Operating Condition Water Supply Pressure............................................................................................. 31
Table 3-6 Flow Velocities in Main Pipes .......................................................................................................................... 32
Table 3-7 Primary and Secondary Distribution System............................................................................................... 33
Table 3-8 Utility Crossings ................................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 3-9 Hydraulic Criteria............................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 3-10 Pipe Line Curve Data: PVC and HDPE Pipe Joints ................................................................................. 35
Table 3-11 Air Valve Sizes ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 3-12 Water Filtration plant Specifications: Rapid Sand Filtration .................................................................... 40
Table 4-1 Peaking Factors ................................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 4-2 Estimated Discharges of Main Drains at Outfall Points ............................................................................ 52
Table 4-3 Typical Runoff Coefficient (C) Values for Various Areas ........................................................................ 54
Table 4-4 Value of “n” for Different Type of Material of Construction ................................................................. 56
Table 4-5 Free board in open channels ........................................................................................................................... 57
Table 4-6 Type of bedding material .................................................................................................................................. 58
Table 4-7 Gradient of Sewers ............................................................................................................................................ 58
Table 4-8 Retention Time for Different Populations ................................................................................................... 60
Table 4-9 Manhole Spacing Different Diameter of Sewers ........................................................................................ 62
Table 4-10 Dia of Manhole with Different Diameter and Depth of Sewer .............................................................. 63
Table 4-11 Typical Composition of untreated domestic wastewater........................................................................ 65
Table 4-12 Characteristics of Septage ................................................................................................................................ 66

November, 2013 iv
Table 4-13 National Environmental Quality Standards for Municipal and Liquid Industrial Effluents (mg/unless
otherwise defined)............................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 4-14 Concentration Limits for Different Contaminants ..................................................................................... 69
Table 5-1 Current Demand (Year 2013).......................................................................................................................... 71
Table 5-2 Future Demand ................................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 5-3 Levels of Service (LOS) for Primary Collection ......................................................................................... 73
Table 5-4 Primary Collection Vehicles Suitability ......................................................................................................... 75
Table 5-5 Secondary Storage Containers Suitability .................................................................................................... 76
Table 5-6 Levels of Service for Secondary Containers ............................................................................................... 76
Table 5-7 Secondary Collection Vehicles Suitability .................................................................................................... 77
Table 5-8 Street Width Categories .................................................................................................................................. 77
Table 5-9 Assessment of Potential Sites For Final Disposal Of Solid Waste (Sanitary
Landfilling/Composting) ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Table 5-10 Assessment of Potential Sites For Final Disposal Of Solid Waste (Sanitary
Landfilling/Composting) ...................................................................................................................................... 85
Table 5-11 Performance indicator ...................................................................................................................................... 88
Table 5-12 Performance indicator ..................................................................................................................................... 89
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Tubewell Layout with Installed Turbine Pump ....................................................................................... 47
Figure 3-2 Tubewell Layout with Installed Submersible ........................................................................................... 48
Figure 4-1 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve for the Study Area .................................................................... 53
Figure 5-1 Road Network Hierarchy ............................................................................................................................ 78
Figure 5-2 Potential Sites for Sanitary Landfills and Composting Plants............................................................... 83
List of Exhibit
Exhibit 2-1 Important Locations of the Project Area ...................................................................................................... 15
List of Appendix
Appendix 3-1 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Appendix 3-2 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Appendix 3-3 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 46

November, 2013 v
Abbreviations and Acronyms
3Rs Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
A&E Architect and Engineering
ADB Asian Development Bank
ADD Average Daily Demand
ADP Annual Development Programme
ATO (I) Assistant Town Officer (Infrastructure)
Basic Education for Awareness Reforms & Empowerment/Basic Education
BEFARE
for Afghan Refugees
BoD Board of Directors
CAD Computer Aided Design
CB Cantonment Board
CBOs Community Based Organizations
CCB Citizen Community Board
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CDs Compacted Disc
CE Chief Engineer
CECP Community Engagement and Coordination Plan
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CIP Community Infrastructure Project
CLET Community Liaison Engagement Team
CLTS Community-Led Total Sanitation
COP Chief of Party
COs Community Organizations
CRISP Community Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Support Program
CSO Civil Society Organization
DCO District Coordination Officer
DG Director General
DMS Document Management System
EA Environmental Assessment
EBDM Enterprise for Business & Development Management
EDO Executive District Officer
EE Electrical Engineer
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERAC Environmental Review and Assessment Checklist
ERF Environmental Review Form
ERR Environmental Review Report
ESC Engineering Services Consultants
ESC Engineering Services Consultants
FAM Finance and Admin Manager
FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FIP Field Investigation Plan
G2G Government to Government
GBV Gender Based Violence
GCA Gender and Civil Society Advisor

November, 2013 vi
GI Galvanized Iron
GIP Gender Integration Plan
GIS Geographic Information System
GoKP Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
GoP Government of Pakistan
GPS Global Positioning System
IAT Institutional Assessment Team
IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract
IQC International Quality Control
IRC International Rescue Committee
IRDS Institute of Research and Development Studies
IRSP Integrated Rural Support Program
JE Junior Engineer
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KM Kilometer
KP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
LCBLG Dept. Local Council Board of Local Government Department
LG Local Government
LG & RDD Local Government and Rural Development Department
LG Act. Local Government Act.
LGO Local Government Ordinance
LHV Lady Health Visitor
LOE Level of Efforts
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MC Municipal Corporation
MCP Municipal Corporation Peshawar
MD Managing Director
MDD Millennium Development Board
ME Mechanical Engineer
MET Dept. Meteorological Department
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MMP Mott. Macdonald Pakistan
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MP Monthly Progress
MSDP Municipal Services Delivery Programme
MSP Municipal services programme
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MWH Montgomery, Watson and Harza
NCSW National Commission on Status of Women
NDC National Development Consultants
NESPAK National Engineering Services Pakistan
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NTP Notice to Proceed
O&M Operation & Maintenance
OMM Operation & Maintenance Manager
P&D Planning and Development

November, 2013 vii
P&DD Planning and Development Department
P&M Planning and Monitoring
PA Personal Assistant
PADO Peace and Development Organization
Pak. CDP Pakistan Community Development Programme
Pak. VDP Pakistan Village Development Programme
PC-I Planning Commission Form -I
PC-II Planning Commission Form -II
PCSIR Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
PD Project Director
PDA Peshawar Development Authority
PEP Project Execution Plan
PESCO Peshawar Electric Supply Company
PHED Public Health Engineering Department
PMP Project Management Plan
PMU Project Management Unit
PoE Panel of Experts
POPIN United Nation Population Information Network
PP&HA Physical Planning and Housing Authority
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RDS Research and Development Studies
RFTOP Request for Task Order Proposal
RPM Revolution Per Minute
RWO Residential Welfare Organizations
SAFRON Ministry of States and Frontier Regions
SAT Sanitation Assessment Team
SDA Sarhad Development Authority
SE Structural Engineer
SEWD Senior Water Design Engineer
SHG Senior Hydrologist
SoP Survey of Pakistan
SRSP Sarhad Rural Support Programme
SSM Sanitation / Storm Water Manager
SWM Solid Waste Manager
SWMT Solid Waste Management Team
SWT Solid Waste Team
TMA Town Municipal Administration
TMO Town Municipal Officer
TOCOR Task Order Contracting Officer Representative
TOI Town Officer Infrastructure
ToR Term of Reference
TTLs Technical Team Leader
UC Union Council
UFW Unaccounted for Water
UN United Nations

November, 2013 viii
UNFPA United Nations Fund for Population
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations International Fund for Children and Education
UPU Urban Policy Unit
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VC Vice Chancellor
VIP Very Important Person
VOs village organizations
W&S Water and Sanitation
WAPDA Water and Power Development Authority
WASA Water and Sanitation Agency
WASH Water Supply and Sanitation Hygiene
WAT Water Assessment Team
WATSAN Water and Sanitation Services
WDM Water Design Manager
WOs Women Organizations
WSIP Water and Sanitation Infrastructure Programme
WSSP Water and Sanitation Service Peshawar
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
XEN Executive Engineer

November, 2013 ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID commissioned NDC Consultants, working in collaboration with MWH Global, USA to
develop a Master Plan for improved utility services – water supply, sanitation/stormwater and solid
waste management - that meets the needs of the residents of Peshawar through the year 2032. The
Master Plan will: follow a process of a thorough study of existing conditions and performance of
utilities infrastructure; evaluate financial and institutional capacities of utility organizations; and
provide recommendations for future investments in the planned system to improve the quality of
services to meet the targeted needs. The Master Plan will also identify institutional transformative
actions necessary to improve municipal services and sustain future investments in the utility
infrastructure.
The study area for the Peshawar Master Planning Project consists of 67 UCs with a total area of 339
Sq. km. Out of 67 UCs, 46 are located in the urban areas and the rest 21 UCs belongs to the rural
areas. Until this report, it was recognized that the project area consists of 66 UCs (46 urban and 20
rural). However, detailed investigations have revealed that Laramma rural UC is also part of the
project area and should be included in the final analysis. Furthermore, it has also been verified that
the areas of all urban UCs are entirely included in the PMPP area whereas only 10 rural UCs are
fully included in the PMPP area and the rest 11 rural UCs are partially represented. Based on these
findings, the population of the study area if estimated to be 1,469,983 (based on 1998 census). The
population of 46 urban UCs is 982,816 (66.86 percent) whereas the population of 21 rural UCs is
487,167 (33.14 percent).
The main focus of this deliverable is to develop engineering design criteria for the development of a
comprehensive Master Plan for sustainable improvement of drinking water, sanitation/stormwater
and solid waste management facilities within the study area to meet the community needs in 2032.
Under this Master Plan, NDC’s aim is to propose systems, identify required infrastructure, and
recommend an implementation plan that reflects community needs and is achievable under the
existing socio-economic and political environment. To achieve this objective, the social and
community experts, institutional specialists and the engineers on NDC’s team have coordinated
closely in identifying the criteria that best helps guide the master planning process.
For the development of Master Plan, projection of future population is the key parameter. In KP
province in general and in Peshawar district in particular, number of socio-economic and political
parameters have influenced the growth rate over the last two to three decades. Female education,
economic crisis of the 1990s, an increase in unemployment, a decline in real wages, increases in
poverty and inequality, and changes in social structures such as preference for nuclear families, are
considered to be the fundamental causes of decline in fertility and its proximate determinants.
Considering these socio-economic parameters, different consultants have calculated growth rates
for the Peshawar city to project future population. However, these projections are mainly confined
to their respective project areas and are largely based on 1998 census data. Unfortunately, no
information was available for the future population projections for the study area of the Peshawar
Master Planning Project.
NDC reviewed all the growth rates determined by different organizations and found that the growth
rates of Izhar Associates and USAID Project on “City Boundary Report” are more realistic. These
growth rates show a decreasing trend in the population growth rate depending on the above-
mentioned socio-economic parameters. Using these growth rates, NDC has projected population
for the whole study area and for each UC separately until 2032. UC-wise population projections are
needed for the development of Master Plan because each UC will grow differently based on its
circumstances. The projected population for the study area for 2032 is estimated to be 3,655,593.
The 46 urban UCs will have population of 2,444,593 whereas the population of 21 rural UCs will
reach to 1,211,500.
Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

November, 2013 1
The record of per capita water supply/demand, including domestic, industrial, commercial,
institutional and public demands is not available with any organization. NDC did extensive literature
review to find out design criteria which are being used in different cities of Pakistan and the region.
Water demand projections for the future needs to consider unaccounted for water (UFW) that is
lost through leakages in the water supply installations such as distribution network, transmission
mains and water consumed through unauthorized connections. Generally, the unaccounted amount
of water is considered as 20 to 30 percent depending on the level of system maintenance. For
conditions prevailing in Peshawar, NDC has proposed 20 percent allowance for the project time
domain.
Water production and consumption records for Peshawar are not being maintained by the service
provider departments/institutions. NDC made every effort to assess water consumption for
projecting per capita per day water requirements. NDC performed energy audit including actual
discharge measurements of 20 representative tubewells in the study area which revealed that the
consumption is 156 liters/capita/day (lpcd) in case of 100 percent population coverage. Considering
non-domestic demands (i.e. industrial, commercial and institutional, fire flows etc), NDC has
proposed 246 lpcd for urban inclusive of unaccounted for water and 136 lpcd for rural areas. In the
rural areas, further segregation is made. For areas where sewerage facilities are provided, demand is
136 lpcd and for on-site sanitation arrangements, proposed demand would be 68 lpcd. NDC has
conducted meetings with community and different stakeholders to discuss these demand
projections.
Domestic wastewater flow is calculated on the basis of above-mentioned per capita water
consumption of 246 lpcd for urban areas and 136 lpcd for rural areas. In general 80 to 90 percent of
water consumption is taken as contribution to wastewater flow. For this project, 80 percent of
water consumption is recommended for contribution to waste water. In Peshawar, most volume of
wastewater is generated from residences whereas substantial contribution also comes from
industries or commercial areas. For designing the sewer, a general allowance of 45,000 liters per
hector per day is recommended for the study area. In addition, special allowances may have to be
made on an individual basis for very large industrial sources of wastewater. Commercial and
institutional wastewater will be taken on the same basis as adopted for water consumption.
Keeping in view the trends of multi-story’s building construction it is advisable to adopt at least 14m
minimum terminal pressure for urban areas and 8m minimum terminal pressure for rural areas. Also
in case of multi-story buildings, it should be mandatory to construct an underground storage tank
from where water can be lifted to the roof top. In Peshawar most of the storages are elevated,
except where direct pumping is used. Several elevated storages are being used at suitable points. The
capacity of the elevated tanks should be 15 to 20 percent of the maximum daily use water which
shall be sufficient for 4 to 6 hours. Capacities of overhead reservoir should vary from 10,000 to
100,000 imperial gallons. Reservoirs should also be designed to act as balancing system (combination
of direct and through reservoir supply).
Daily rainfall data of 35 years (1970-2005) was used to perform rainfall-runoff and frequency analysis.
Based on these analyses, average daily rainfall was found to be 56.6mm for the study area. These
analyses were further used to calculate discharges of the main drains of the Peshawar city and to
develop intensity-duration-frequency curve for the catchment of the study area. This data was then
used to calculate UC-wise sewage flow generation for the planning year of 2032.
For solid waste management, current waste generation was found to be 894 tons/day. Out of which
72 percent is residual waste whereas the rest 28 percent is recyclable waste. With growth in
population and rise in the living standard, the waste generation rate is expected to rise. The average
generation rate, determined during the assessment was 0.546 kg/capita/day. It is assumed that the
average waste generation rate will be increased to 0.59 kg/capita/day in year 2032. Provisional
estimates for waste management system components are that 90% of the total generation will be
collected, 60% of collected waste will be composted, 20% will be recycled and 20% landfilled. The

November, 2013 2
assessment will consider methods to enhance collection performance and waste minimization.
NDC has proposed a two stage strategy for solid waste management for the planning years of 2022
and 2032. Stage–I covers the period up to 2022 and will establish a source waste collection system
for land uses and activities currently served by public sector. This means leave industrial waste and
construction and demolition waste (C&D) to the private sector; leave resource recovery to the
private informal sector, monitor performance, gather information about private sector and informal
sector; review the strategy for waste services and resource recovery services. Stage-2 will cover
period from 2022 to 2032 and will implement findings of the review e.g. refine waste collection
system; support resource recovery services, support private sector in targeted ways or provide a
two bin system (e.g. one for organic material recovery and another for residual waste).
This report has also introduced appropriate technologies which can be used for primary and
secondary collection of the waste considering its amount and street sizes of the city. This includes
replacement of open waste storage sites and facilities made of cement or masonry construction by a
waste storage facility in the form of mobile closed-body large containers, or parked vehicles.
Communal containers need to be designed to meet the level of service criteria. These communal
containers will be designed so as to be compatible with the collection and transportation system and
to avoid unnecessary handling of waste.
Community Liaison and Engagement Team (CLET) conducted 69 focus group discussions to collect
qualitative data from community members in the project area. FGDs were conducted with members
of Community Citizen Boards (CCBs)/Community Organization (COs) which were initially referred
to by defunct TMAs. In both men and women (same-sex) focus groups, there were 14 to 15
participants from similar socio-economic backgrounds. The team made sure that FGDs have
representations of both women and men. A representative sample of 2756 households was also
surveyed from 50 UCs in the project area. Out of this sample, 1407 survey respondents were men
(48 percent), 1349 were women (43 percent) and 553 are refusals (153 men and 400 women).
Findings of FGDs and baseline survey are summarized below:
• Many households are accessing water, but do so independent of municipal services via private
wells, bore holes, or fetching water from outside sources.
• Access to safe drinking water is a challenge to the vast majority of the population in the
project area; however, community members living in rural areas, the urban poor, and
minorities such as refugees face particular challenges in accessing water
• Approximately one-fifth of households surveyed are dependent on water from outside of
their household premises, presenting challenges compounded by social, cultural, and gender
barriers
• Half of the community reported poor taste, color, or smell of the water they drink
• Unsafe water is correlated (but not necessarily caused by) communities with dug wells and
bore holes more than with tube wells.
• The high prevalence of water-related diseases points to very poor and unsafe water for over
one-third of the community in the project area.
• Nearly half of the focus groups cited wastewater as the primary cause of bad odors,
mosquitos, and diseases in communities
• The most common problem reported by communities was the clogging of sewers and drains
with plastic bags and solid waste which causes overflowing during dry season
• Women and impoverished households store, collect, and sell the recyclable solid wastes as a
sources of their income-generation
- Community members are dissatisfied with the water and sanitation services, which are
poor or completely lacking across urban and rural areas of the study area
• Municipal services or committees are reported to be ineffective

November, 2013 3
• The response time for repairs and customer services is unsatisfactory, poor, or non-existent
in the most part of the study area
• Less than one-fifth of the households pay for municipal services
• No service exists to assist households in paying water bills, which disproportionately affects
impoverished households, widowed women, and minority populations such as refugees. Many
poor families are able to afford very little to nothing for connection fees or water service.
Mistrust on government and dissatisfaction on services provided resulting in non-payment of bills,

creation of a vicious cycle of poor, poor O&M and lack of sustainability.

November, 2013 4
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) retained National Development
Consultant – (Pvt.) Ltd. (NDC) in association with MWH Americans, Inc. (MWH) on November 16,
2012 to provide planning and engineering services for developing a Master Plan for improving
municipal services for the Peshawar City in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) over a period of eighteen
months.
The objective of the plan is to recommend options to improve the infrastructure and elevate the
current performance and level of service of the existing drinking water, sanitation/storm water and
solid waste management systems (hereafter referred collectively as “utilities”) in Peshawar. The goal
of the Master Plan is to identify infrastructure system and utility organizational improvements
through to the year 2032 that will facilitate a clean and healthy environment within Peshawar and
foster the development of positive social and economic activities among its residents.
The tasks associated with the Master Plan include: 1) reviewing the condition and capability of the
existing infrastructure; 2) assessing the effectiveness of the prevailing utility organizations who
operate and manage these systems and services; and 3) proposing recommendations for
infrastructure system and service improvement and effective institutional management arrangements
to benefit the residents of Peshawar through to the year 2032.
The study area for this project consists of 66 Union Councils (UC) with a total area of 339 sq. km.
Out of 66 UCs, 46 are located in the urban areas whereas 20 UCs belong to the rural areas.
1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
To date, NDC has submitted the following assessment and technical reports as part of this project:
 Deliverable 10 – Review of Existing Reports on Drinking Water, Sanitation/Stormwater and

Solid Waste Management
 Deliverable 11 – Detailed Assessment and Evaluation Report
 Deliverable 12 – Existing Institutional and Financial Assessment Report
 Deliverable 20 - Preliminary Community Engagement and Coordination Plan (CECP)
In Deliverable 10 (submitted to USAID in April 2013), NDC provided a comprehensive review of

available reports and documents on the utilities along with an initial understanding of the existing
systems and its operations. The report also highlighted gaps in data and information that were
needed for the assessing the existing systems and identifying future infrastructure needs. This data
gap was the basis for the development of field investigation plan and subsequent field investigation
activities.
Deliverable 11 (submitted to USAID in October 2013) documented the assessment of the existing
drinking water, sanitation/storm water and the solid waste management systems within the study
area. This assessment focused on analyzing the capacity and capability of the existing systems, and
identifying the current condition and operating state of the components of these systems. To
conduct this assessment, NDC undertook field investigations over a four month period (June-
September) to gather necessary information for adequately assessing the existing system within the
study area.
There were several limitations and constraints faced during field investigations. No system maps or
operational records were available for any of the existing systems. Developing a system wide
infrastructure base map was not feasible within the timeframe of this project. Poor security situation

November, 2013 5
in the study area restricted movement of field teams and impacted the extent to which data could be
collected. Furthermore, haphazard and unplanned development of water supply and sanitation
systems made it difficult to access drains/pipes and buried manholes. This resulted in field
investigative teams making educated guess on tubewell and reservoir service areas, flow catchment
areas and system connectivity.
In Deliverable 12, NDC provided an assessment of the current institutions responsible for providing
municipal services within the study area.
Deliverable 20, the Community Engagement and Coordination Plan (CECP) is a flexible working
document envisioned to guide community engagement activities of the NDC project team
throughout the current master planning process, as well as through subsequent phases of project
development and implementation to ensure that infrastructure is planned with the participation of
end users within the project communities. This will help to ensure that utility needs are adequately
defined to meet local needs, and that the long-term sustainability of the utilities is also addressed by
identifying an institutional setup that effectively operates and maintains the utility.
1.3 OVERVIEW OF MASTER PLAN CRITERIA
The purpose of this report is to document the various criteria to guide the master plan for
sustainable development of drinking water, sanitation/stormwater and solid waste management
facilities within the study area. This report compiles Deliverable 13 (Executive Summary),
Deliverable 14 (Community Factors) and Deliverable 15 (Engineering Criteria) under a single cover.
Lack of reliable municipal services within the study area is primarily due to lack of effective
infrastructure to meet community needs and absence of effective institutions to plan, implement,
operate, manage and maintain the service systems. NDC’s goal with this master plan is to propose
systems, identify required infrastructure, and recommend an implementation plan that reflects the
realities of the community its serving, including the limitations of governmental institutions in
sustaining service.
To achieve this goal, the social and community experts, institutional specialists and the engineers on
NDC’s team have coordinated closely in identifying the criteria that best helps guide the master
planning process. This report is a compilation of these criteria.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This main report is developed according to the following seven sections:
Section 1.0 - Introduction

Section 2.0 - Population Projections
Section 3.0 - Drinking Water Systems
Section 4.0 - Sanitation/Stormwater System
Section 5.0 - Solid Waste Management System
Section 6.0 - Community Factors
Appendices

November, 2013 6
2.0 POPULATION PROJECTIONS IN PMPP AREA
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Peshawar is and old historical city that serves as a Provincial Headquarter of the Province of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (KP). It is the hub for commercial industrial, social and political activities in the
northwestern region of Pakistan. According to 1998 Census Report, the population of Peshawar
District was 2,010,109. The estimates of Project Management Unit (PMU) of the Department of
Housing KPK, suggests that the population of Peshawar district will rise to 4,831,094 in the year
2030. Approximately 99 percent of the population is Muslim. Other minorities include Hindus,
Sikhs, Jews, Zoroastrians and members of the Bahai Faith.
Unplanned urban development had encroached over 2,700 hectares of prime agricultural land in
Peshawar District. In addition, increasing urbanization has put enormous pressure on natural
resources and environmental amenities of the Peshawar city. Along with lack of attention to the
municipal service systems such as water supply, sanitation, drainage and solid waste management, the
quality of life in Peshawar has deteriorated. Various governments over the last two decades have
struggled to improve land-use planning to prevent haphazard and unplanned urban development.
However, the success has been limited due to various factors and the city largely remains
unorganized and inadequately developed.
For planning any project related to the development of infrastructure, identifying the number of
people to be served during the design year is critical. For municipal services, in addition to
population, density of population is also a critical factor for identifying infrastructure requirements.
2.2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT

ACCORDING TO 1998 CENSUS
In accordance with the 2001 Local Government Ordinance, Peshawar was given the status of a city
district and subdivided into four towns. Each town consisted of a group of Union Councils (UC),
covering a total of 94 UCs. In addition to the four towns, urban areas also included the Cantonment
and new housing schemes under the City District Municipal Department (CDMD), such as
Hayatabad and Regi Lalmah. In 2013, the town classification was removed and the urban areas were
brought under the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation and the rural areas under district council.
Peshawar District is spread over an area of 1257 sq. km. extending over 50 km from north to south
and 30 km from east to west. Peshawar’s expansion has largely been unplanned and unregulated,
with development taking place mainly along the major roads and routes leading to other regional
centers. While there are no detailed studies of Peshawar’s informal settlements, an estimated 60–70
percent of Peshawar is made up of informal areas or slums without adequate services, housing, roads
or sanitation.
In 1998, the population density was 1,591 persons per sq.km., which apparently increased to roughly
2,459 persons per sq. Km. in 2010 (IMMAP, 2012).The population of 94 UCs as reflected in the
census report of 1998 is given in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Distribution of UC Wise Population for the Peshawar District
UC Urban UC Rural
Sr.
Name Population Sr. No Name Population
No
1 Akhunabad 24,100 1 Achina Bala 27,891
2 Andhar Sher 17,099 2 Badaber Maryumzai 16,442
3 Asia 25,752 3 Bazid Khel 26,422
4 Bhanna Mari 17,637 4 Chamkanni 20,977
5 Cantt Area-I 35,906 5 Dag 23,210

November, 2013 7
Table 2-1
Distribution of UC Wise Population for the Peshawar District
UC Urban UC Rural
Sr.
Name Population Sr. No Name Population
No
6 Cantt Area-II 32,834 6 Khazana 23,387
7 Deh Bahdar 23,138 7 Larama 15,272
8 Dheri Bhagmanan 17,351 8 Masho Goggar 30,728
9 Faqirabad 16,351 9 Mathra 28,958
10 Gunj 18,685 10 Musazai 17,319
11 Gulbahar 18,492 11 Pajagi 22,903
12 Hassan Ghari No.1 21,613 12 Pakha Ghulam 20,000
13 Hassan Ghari No.2 18,641 13 Pushtakhara 25,174
14 Hayatabad No-1 14,986 14 Regi 25,532
15 Hayatabad No-2 17,753 15 Surband 22,093
16 Hazar Khawani -1 20,720 16 Shahi Bala 20,911
17 Hazar Khawani -2 25,330 17 Sheikh Muhammadi 27,748
18 Jahangir Pura 19,105 18 Shekhan 26,375
19 Kakshal-1 19,222 19 Maira Sorizai Payan 16,745
20 Kakshal-2 18,998 20 Sufaid Dheri 29,668
21 Karim Pura 16,666 21 Wadpaga 19,412
22 Khalisa-1 15,861 22 Adizai 19,439
23 Khalisa -2 22,711 23 Aza Khel 19,692
24 Lahori 18,429 24 Badaber Hurizai 16,108
25 Landi Arbab 22,032 25 Budhni 19,587
26 Mahal Terahi -1 23,504 26 Chagher Matti 18,425
27 Mahal Terahi-2 32,634 27 Ghari Sher Dad 17,345
28 Malkandhir 20,467 28 Gul Bela 24,910
29 Nauthia Qadeem 21,887 29 Haryana Payan 25,961
30 Nauthia Jadid 23,295 30 Joggani 19,591
31 Palosi 22,528 31 Kafoor Dhari 21,359
32 Pawaka 24,817 32 Kaniza 18,975
33 Shaheen Muslim Town 1 19,268 33 Kankola 25,900
34 Shaheen Muslim Town 2 21,495 34 Khatki 18,492
35 Shaheen Town 25,749 35 Lala 17,087
36 Shahi Bagh 18,147 36 Maryamzai 19,336
37 Sheikh Junaidabad 22,837 37 Mattani 26,320
38 Sikandar Town 19,687 38 Mera Kachori 25,512
39 Tehkal Bala 26,178 39 Nahaqi 25,677
40 Tehkal Payan -i 18,550 40 Palosi 2,661
41 Tehkal Payan -ii 15,961 41 Panam Dhari 21,146
42 University Town 18,581 42 Sher Kara 15,387
43 Wazir Bagh 24,768 43 Suliman Khel 15,782
44 YakkaToot-1 16,719 44 Surizai Bala 15,398
45 YakkaToot-2 26,230 45 Takht Abad 27,776
46 YakkaToot-3 20,102 46 Urmar Bala 24,007
47 Urmar Miana 18,992
48 Urmar Payan 19,261
Total 46 UCs 982,816 Total 48 UCs 1,027,293
Urban population = 982,816 (48.49%)
Rural population = 1,044,036 (51.51)
Total population of the district Peshawar = 2,010,109

November, 2013 8
2.3 AFGHAN INFLUX AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLES LIVING
IN THE PESHAWAR CITY
The majority of Afghan refugees in Pakistan migrated during the Soviet occupation (1979–89), with
80 percent (2,442,211) arriving before 1985 (Turton and Marsden, 2002). Many of those fleeing into
Pakistan at that time were from rural areas of Afghanistan where the conflict was most intense
(UNHCR, 2005). These refugees largely settled in and around Peshawar. Following the establishment
of the Taliban government and the capture of Kabul in 1996, influx of Afghan refugee continued with
roughly 134,000 refugees fleeing to Pakistan. An estimated 80 percent of women in Kabul left the
city and fled, primarily to Peshawar (Khan, 2002). Despite official closure of Pakistan-Afghanistan
border, Afghan refugee continued coming to Pakistan by crossing unofficial routes. An estimated
170,000 refugees entered Pakistan during 2000 and majority settled in Peshawar (Turton and
Marsden, 2002). The exact number of these settlers is not known because they never got registered.
Currently, approximately 80% of Pakistan’s 1.7m registered Afghan refugees live in KP and 60% of
these live in or around the Peshawar valley (Humanitarian Policy Group, 2013). This means that
registered population of Afghan refugees living in the Peshawar district is about 800,000. About 5m
people have been displaced by armed conflict against militants in FATA and KP (IDMC, 2012).
Conflict internally displaced person (IDP) numbers in KP have fluctuated significantly, from an influx
of over 3m in 2009 to currently registered figures of 774,594 in KP and FATA at the end of 2012
(UNHCR, 2012c). However, i) the report Vol. 2 of the Detail Design Report (March 2012),
“Establishment of Urban Water and Sanitation Utility” and ii) the report on Land-use Plan of Five
District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Final District Studies Report Peshawar (Revised, November 2012);
depict that there are no camp-based IDPs in District Peshawar. Both the said reports further
indicate that the IDPs living outside camps are about 90,000, constituting 17,961 families.
Despite growing insecurity and internal displacement in Afghanistan in recent years, the pressure to
repatriate is growing. However, most Afghans are reluctant to go back because of insecurity, lack of
access to land and services. In 2012, only around 62,000 Afghans went home (UNHCR, 2012d). A
recent profiling survey conducted by SAFRON and UNHCR found that 84 percent of those
remaining in Pakistan had no intention of returning to Afghanistan (UNHCR/SAFRON/CCAR 2012).
Most Afghan refugees have spent the bulk of their life in Pakistan: Seventy four percent of Afghans
were born in Pakistan and half of the Afghan population is under the age of 15
(UNHCR/SAFRON/CCAR 2012). This means that population of Afghan refugees living in the
Peshawar City need to be considered for future planning as their chances of returning to Afghanistan
(at least in the near future) are very slim.
2.4 AREAS OF 21 RURAL UCs FULLY OR PARTIALLY INCLUDED IN

THE PMPP AREA
The study area for the Peshawar Master Planning Project consists of 67 UCs with a total area of 339
Sq. km. Out of 67 UCs, 46 are located in the urban areas and the rest 21 UCs belongs to the rural
areas. According to 1998 census, the population of the study area is 1,469,983. The population of 46
urban UCs is 982,816 (66.86 percent) whereas the population of 21 rural UCs is 487,167 (33.14
percent). The areas of all Urban UCs are entirely included in the PMPP area while in case of Rural
UCs 10 UCs are fully included whereas 11 UCs are partially represented. Hence the total Urban
areas as included in the PMPP will remain constant while there would be a significant difference of
167.16 Sq. Km. between the total areas of the PMPP related Rural UCs and their actual area taken
into the PMPP as per the details given below in Table 2-2.
Consequently the total area of all 67 UCs (both Urban & Rural) as included in the PMPP is 506.49
Sq. Km while project related area of all such UCs is about 339.33 Sq. Km. For the purpose of
calculation of densities (during the year 1998 as well as year 2032), total area of each UC has to be
taken into account irrespective of the facts whether any of the UC falls completely or partially within
the project study area.

November, 2013 9
The above clarification deems necessary for avoiding confusion in the figures related to areas and
density of the various UCs which are being used in subsequent paras of this report.
Table 2-2
Details of Rural UCs Included Fully or Partially in the Study Area
Sr. Population Total Area Area included in the Study
UC Name
No. (1998) (Sq. Km.) Area
1 Achni Bala 27,891 20.6525 20.6520
2 Badaber Maryumzai 16,442 38.9160 6.0428
3 Bazid Khel 26,422 4.8377 4.8377
4 Chamkanni 20,977 7.6070 3.6229
5 Dag 23,210 6.2800 0.4437
6 Khazana 23,387 16.9990 1.4412
7 Masho Gaggar 30,728 26.5400 3.5081
8 Mathra 28,958 21.2250 8.8802
19 Maira Sorizai Payan 16,745 12.9950 10.0199
9 Musazai 17,319 16.3502 16.3502
10 Larama 15,272 1.8550 1.8549
11 Pajaggi 22,903 6.7680 3.9324
12 Pakha Ghulam 20,000 8.5480 8.3686
13 Pushtakhara 25,174 9.8616 9.8616
14 Regi 25,532 15.0096 15.0096
15 Surband 22,093 8.7997 8.7997
16 Shahi Bala 20,911 26.5240 16.2525
17 Sheikh Muhammadi 27,748 15.5880 8.2976
18 Shekhan 26,375 51.9870 6.1758
20 Sufaid Dheri 29,668 15.6163 15.6163
21 Wadpagga 19,412 11.0980 6.9301
Total = 487,167 344.0577 176.8978
2.5 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2032
Several economic and social changes in Pakistan, such as female education, economic crisis of the
1990s, an increase in unemployment, a decline in real wages, increases in poverty and inequality, and
changes in social structures such as preference for nuclear families, are considered to be the
fundamental causes of decline in fertility and its proximate determinants.
Considering these socio-economic parameters, different consultants have calculated growth rates
for the Peshawar city to project future population. Different consultants have projected populations
for their respective project areas using growth rates as given in Table 2-3 below and taking 1998
census data as a base. However, no information is available for the future population projections for
the study area of the Peshawar Master Planning Project.
Table 2-3
Growth Rates used in Past and On-Going Studies
Growth Rate (%)
Period CDM- City Boundary ESC3
NESPAK Izhar1
CRISP Report2
1 2 3 4 5 6
1981-98 3.56 3.56 3.56
1998-2009 3.73 3.73
3.29
2005-10
2009-13 3.51 2.70 2.70
2011-16 3.10
3.5
2013-18 2.33 2.33

November, 2013 10
Table 2-3
Growth Rates used in Past and On-Going Studies
Growth Rate (%)
Period CDM- City Boundary ESC3
NESPAK Izhar1
CRISP Report2
2017-20 3.00
2018-23 2.19 2.19
2021-26 2.98
2023-28 2.03 2.03
2027-40 2.95
2028-30 1.96 1.96
1. Final District Studies Report, Landuse Plan of Five District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, November, 2012, prepared
by Izhar Associates as Consultants appointed by Project Management Unit (PMU), Housing Department KPK
2. Detailed Design Report (March, 2012), “Technical Assistance to the Provincial Committee on Establishment of
Urban Water and Sanitation Utility in Peshawar City”, USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 391-A-00-01128-
00
3. Engineering Services Consultants (ESC) for Sewerage System & Up-Gradation of Existing Sewage Treatment
Plant, Peshawar District-I.
By using the growth rate as given in column 4 & 5 of the above table and the relevant Geometric
Formula as Pf = Pi (1+Gr)^t where; Pf = the final population after any time t (the period in years), Pi
= the initial population, Gr = the % Growth rate per annum and t = difference of period in years, the
estimated projected population for urban and rural UCs are given in Table 2-4. UC-wise details of
such projection for the Urban and Rural areas are separately given below in Tables 2-5 and 2-6
respectively.
Table 2-4
Population Projection for Urban & Rural UCs of the Study Area for 2022 and 2032
Urban No. of 1998 2022 2032
/ Rural UCs Population %age Population %age Population %age
Urban 46 982,816 66.86 2,001,477 66.86 2,444,093 66.86
Rural 21 487,167 33.14 992,102 33.14 1,211,500 33.14
Total 1,469,983 100 29,993,579 100 3,655,593 100
Table 2-5
Population Projections for the Urban UCs of the Study Area
Sr.
UC Name 1998 1999 2013 2018 2022 2023 2028 2032
No.
Applied Growth
3.73 2.70 2.33 2.19 2.19 2.03 1.96
Rate
1 Akhunabad 24,100 36,055 40,109 45,005 49,079 50,154 55,455 59,933
2 Andhar Sher 17,099 25,581 28,458 31,931 34,822 35,584 39,346 42,522
3 Asia 25,752 38,526 42,859 48,090 52,443 53,592 59,257 64,041
4 Bhanna Mari 17,637 26,386 29,353 32,936 35,917 36,704 40,584 43,860
5 Cantt Area-I 35,906 53,717 59,758 67,052 73,122 74,723 82,622 89,292
6 Cantt Area-II 32,834 49,122 54,645 61,315 66,866 68,330 75,553 81,652
7 Deh Bahdar 23,138 34,616 38,508 43,209 47,120 48,152 53,242 57,540
8 Dheri 17,351 25,958 28,877 32,402 35,335 36,109 39,926 43,149

November, 2013 11
Table 2-5
Sr.
UC Name 1998 1999 2013 2018 2022 2023 2028 2032
No.
Applied Growth
3.73 2.70 2.33 2.19 2.19 2.03 1.96
Rate
Bhagmanan
9 Faqirabad 16,351 24,462 27,213 30,534 33,298 34,028 37,624 40,662
10 Gunj 18,685 27,954 31,097 34,893 38,051 38,885 42,995 46,466
11 Gulbahar 18,492 27,665 30,776 34,533 37,658 38,483 42,551 45,986
Hassan Ghari
12 21,613 32,334 35,970 40,361 44,014 44,978 49,733 53,748
No.1
Hassan Ghari
13 18,641 27,888 31,024 34,811 37,962 38,793 42,894 46,357
No.2
Hayatabad No-
14 14,986 22,420 24,941 27,985 30,519 31,187 34,484 37,268
1
Hayatabad No-
15 17,753 26,560 29,546 33,153 36,153 36,945 40,851 44,149
2
Hazar Khawani
16 20,720 30,998 34,484 38,693 42,196 43,120 47,678 51,527
-1
Hazar Khawani
17 25,330 37,895 42,157 47,302 51,584 52,714 58,286 62,991
-2
18 Jahangir Pura 19,105 28,582 31,796 35,677 38,907 39,759 43,962 47,511
19 Kakshal-1 19,222 28,757 31,991 35,896 39,145 40,002 44,231 47,802
20 Kakshal-2 18,998 28,422 31,618 35,477 38,689 39,536 43,715 47,245
21 Karim Pura 16,666 24,933 27,737 31,123 33,940 34,683 38,349 41,445
22 Khalisa-1 15,861 23,729 26,397 29,619 32,300 33,008 36,497 39,444
23 Khalisa -2 22,711 33,977 37,798 42,411 46,250 47,263 52,259 56,478
24 Lahori 18,429 27,571 30,671 34,415 37,530 38,352 42,406 45,830
25 Landi Arbab 22,032 32,961 36,668 41,143 44,868 45,850 50,697 54,790
Mahal Terahi -
26 23,504 35,163 39,118 43,892 47,865 48,913 54,084 58,450
1
27 Mahal Terahi-2 32,634 48,822 54,313 60,942 66,458 67,914 75,092 81,155
28 Malkandhir 20,467 30,620 34,063 38,221 41,680 42,593 47,096 50,898
Nauthia
29 21,887 32,744 36,426 40,872 44,572 45,548 50,363 54,429
Qadeem
30 Nauthia Jadid 23,295 34,851 38,770 43,502 47,440 48,479 53,603 57,931
31 Palosi 22,528 33,703 37,493 42,070 45,878 46,882 51,838 56,023
32 Pawaka 24,817 37,128 41,303 46,344 50,539 51,646 57,105 61,716
Shaheen
33 Muslim Town 19,268 28,826 32,068 35,982 39,239 40,098 44,337 47,916
1
Shaheen
34 Muslim Town 21,495 32,158 35,774 40,140 43,774 44,733 49,461 53,454
2
35 Shaheen Town 25,749 38,522 42,854 48,085 52,437 53,585 59,250 64,033
36 Shahi Bagh 18,147 27,149 30,202 33,888 36,956 37,765 41,757 45,128

November, 2013 12
Table 2-5
Sr.
UC Name 1998 1999 2013 2018 2022 2023 2028 2032
No.
Applied Growth
3.73 2.70 2.33 2.19 2.19 2.03 1.96
Rate
Sheikh
37 22,837 34,165 38,007 42,647 46,507 47,525 52,549 56,792
Junaidabad
38 Sikandar Town 19,687 29,453 32,765 36,764 40,092 40,970 45,301 48,958
39 Tehkal Bala 26,178 39,164 43,568 48,886 53,311 54,478 60,237 65,100
40 Tehkal Payan -i 18,550 27,752 30,873 34,641 37,777 38,604 42,684 46,131
Tehkal Payan -
41 15,961 23,879 26,564 29,806 32,504 33,216 36,727 39,692
ii
University
42 18,581 27,798 30,924 34,699 37,840 38,668 42,756 46,208
Town
43 Wazir Bagh 24,768 37,054 41,221 46,253 50,439 51,544 56,992 61,594
44 YakkaToot-1 16,719 25,013 27,825 31,222 34,048 34,793 38,471 41,577
45 YakkaToot-2 26,230 39,242 43,654 48,983 53,417 54,586 60,357 65,229
46 YakkaToot-3 20,102 30,074 33,456 37,539 40,937 41,834 46,256 49,990
Total 982,816 1,470,349 1,635,694 1,835,342 2,001,477 2,045,309 2,261,510 2,444,093
Table 2-6
Projected Population of the Rural UCs of the Study Area
Sr.
UC Name 1998 1999 2013 2018 2022 2023 2028 2032
No.
Applied Growth Rate 3.73 2.70 2.33 2.19 2.19 2.03 1.96
1 Achina Bala 27,891 41,727 46,419 52,085 56,799 58,043 64,179 69,360
Badaber
2 16,442 24,598 27,364 30,704 33,484 34,217 37,834 40,888
Maryumzai
3 Bazid Khel 26,422 39,529 43,974 49,341 53,808 54,986 60,798 65,707
4 Chamkanni 20,977 31,383 34,912 39,173 42,719 43,655 48,269 52,166
5 Dag 23,210 34,723 38,628 43,343 47,267 48,302 53,407 57,719
6 Khazana 23,387 34,988 38,923 43,674 47,627 48,670 53,815 58,159
7 Masho Goggar 30,728 45,971 51,140 57,382 62,577 63,947 70,707 76,415
8 Mathra 28,958 43,323 48,195 54,077 58,972 60,264 66,634 72,014
9 Maira Sorizai Payan 16,745 25,051 27,869 31,270 34,101 34,848 38,531 41,642
10 Musazai 17,319 25,910 28,824 32,342 35,270 36,042 39,852 43,069
11 Larama 15,272 22,848 25,417 28,519 31,101 31,782 35,142 37,979
12 Pajagi 22,903 34,264 38,117 42,770 46,641 47,663 52,701 56,956
13 Pakha Ghulam 20,000 29,921 33,286 37,349 40,729 41,621 46,021 49,737
14 Pushtakhara 25,174 37,662 41,897 47,011 51,266 52,389 57,927 62,603
15 Regi 25,532 38,197 42,493 47,679 51,995 53,134 58,750 63,494
16 Surband 22,093 33,052 36,769 41,257 44,992 45,977 50,837 54,941
17 Shahi Bala 20,911 31,284 34,802 39,050 42,585 43,517 48,117 52,002
18 Sheikh Muhammadi 27,748 41,513 46,181 51,818 56,508 57,746 63,850 69,004
19 Shekhan 26,375 39,459 43,896 49,254 53,712 54,888 60,690 65,590
20 Sufaid Dheri 29,668 44,385 49,376 55,403 60,418 61,741 68,268 73,779
21 Wadpagga 19,412 29041 32307 36251 39532 40398 44668 48274
Total 487,167 728,830 810,789 909,751 992,102 1,013,829 1,120,996 1,211,500

November, 2013 13
2.6 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF PESHAWAR
For the purpose of estimating the future population within Peshawar and the current and future
population density, it is important to understand the periodic development of the existing urban
jurisdiction of the Peshawar City. The development history of Peshawar city and current private and
public sectors development is provided below:
The Walled City and Public Sector Housing Schemes
The old city of Peshawar is renowned by city within the walls with its sixteen gates. The area within
the walls was constructed in 1840. Peshawar expanded more rapidly beyond the walls after 1950.
The areas previously falling within the walled Peshawar display the pictures of most densely
populated and congested areas. In the early 20th century, expansion of the areas around the walled
city included Sikandar Pura, Nishtarabad, Gulbahar, Faqirabad, Afgan Colony in the north east, and
Dabgari gardens in the west. The urban jurisdiction of Peshawar City has expanded enormously over
the last two decades. The main extension has been on its northern, southern & eastern parts along
both sides of the Ring Road and other main roads of the city.
Over the last two decades, number of traditional villages has grown to be part of the urban areas.
These include Hassan Garhi, Nothia, Dheri Baghbanan, Nawan Killi, Tehkal Payan, Tehkal Bala and
Pawaka. The low density residential area of the university town was developed in 1950’s.
Hayatabad residential area was established 1970’s by the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA)
and is currently equipped with necessary modern services, infrastructure and facilities for its
inhabitants. This town is spread over on area of 13.3 sq. km which include 6.90 sq. km (51 percent)
for the residential areas while the rest 49 percent is dedicated for other infrastructure like roads,
support facilities, commercial / community services (hospital, educational and graveyard etc.) and
offices etc.
Regi Model township scheme was initiated in 1989 by the Peshawar Development Authority (PDA)
and its development work is still going on and may take another 10 years to be fully inhabited. The
total size of Regi Model Town is about 50 sq. km with its 41 percent portion reserved for residential
area.
The cantonment area flourished during British regime and includes military establishment, low
density residential area, the government enclosures and the Sadder and regional bazaar areas. The
location of the above said areas is indicated in Exhibit 2-1.

November, 2013 14
Exhibit 2-1 Important Locations of the Project Area
Private Sector Housing Scheme

Currently there are 21 ongoing housing schemes in the private sector which include seven approved
and fourteen illegal/unapproved schemes. As per rules notified by the Department of Local
Government and Rural Development (LG&RD), a housing society cannot be developed on a land
less than 160 kanals and without approval of the PDA. The illegal housing societies do not meet
minimum criteria such as proper plotting, roads, mosques, playgrounds, commercial areas and other
facilities (Shehbaz, 2012). The detail of private sector approved and unapproved housing schemes is
given below in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7
Details of Private Sector Housing Schemes in the Peshawar District
Sr. Approval
Name of Scheme Location Scheme Area
No. Status (sq. km)
Near Phase 2 Bridge,
1 Al-Haram Model Town 13-8-2009 0.0638
Hayatabad
2 Al-Masa Moseley Town Warsak Road 13-8-2009 0.2029
3 Professors Model Town Shahi Bala, Nasir Bagh Road 25-6-2008 0.2783
4 Shaheen Housing Complex Warsak Road 21-9-2010 0.2454
5 Peshawar Garden Chamkni Chowk, GT Road 27-42009 0.0820
6 Saudi’s Garden Tehkal Payan, Kanal Road 27-4-2009 0.0324

November, 2013 15
Table 2-7
Details of Private Sector Housing Schemes in the Peshawar District
Sr. Approval
Name of Scheme Location Scheme Area
No. Status (sq. km)
Near University Town
7 Sheikh Yaseen Nasir Bagh Road 09-6-2010 0.6118
8 Khyber Garden Yaseen Abad Un Approved
9 Hira Town Inqilab Road, Chamkani Un Approved
10 Tariq Town (Bacha Town) Larama Road Un Approved
11 Officer Garden Babo Garhi, Warsak Road Un Approved
12 Akbar Model Town Budhni Road Un Approved
13 Galaxy Town Ring Road Un Approved
14 Hayat Garden Dalazak Road Un Approved
15 Sadat Model Town Budhni Un Approved
16 Alnemra Garden Rano Garhi Un Approved
17 Golden Gate City Jhaghra Un Approved
18 New City Home GT Road Un Approved
19 University Model Town Nasir Bagh Un Approved
20 Aziz Town Warsak Road Un Approved
21 Haji Kahn Town Pajjagi Road Un Approved
Beside above, there are also quite a huge number of small housing scheme being under
implementation by private sector on all links roads of the city within and outside the periphery of
PMPP. Important instances of such new scheme on the main GT road toward Noshehra are the City
Home, Muslim City Town and WAPDA Housing Scheme.
2.7 RATIONAL FOR POPULATION PROJECTION OF THE PMPP AREA
During the analysis process of the current population of the PMPP area, it has been observed that
some of the urban UCs are quite congested and overloaded with their existing population and may
likely to have no further absorption capacity to accommodate their additional growth. There are 07
No. urban UCs having their current open area %age less than 10%, 08 No. UCs less than 20% while
the rest are having such %age above than 20%. The No. of UCs and their open area %ages are given
below:
UC having open area within the range of 2 to 10% = 07 Nos.


November, 2013 16
UC having open area within the range of above 40% = 11 Nos.
Total = 46 Nos.
Similarly there are certain UCs in the urban areas which are currently very densely populated where
there is no likelihood that such UCs shall accommodate the growth of their additional future
population. The range of current density of various UCs is given below:
UCs having their population density (persons / Sq. Km.) above 100 thousands = 03 Nos.
UCs having their population density in the range of 50 to 100 thousands = 08 Nos.
UCs having their population density less than 10 thousands = 18 Nos.
Total = 46 Nos.
Different categories of UCs on the basis of above rationales are given below in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8
Urban UCs Distribution on the Basis of %age Open Area and Current Densities
Categories on the Basis of %age Open Area Categories on the Basis of Population
Density
UCs having Open Area %age UCs having Population Density above
Less than 10% 100 Thousand / sq. km.
No.
No. of
of Name of UCs Name of UCs
Category–1 UCs
UCs
Bhanna Mari, Cantt Area 1 & YakkaToot-1, YakkaToot-2 and

07 2, Gulbahar, Kakshal-2, Lahori 03 YakkaToot-3
and Pawaka
UCs having Open Area %age in UCs having Population Density in the
the Range 10 to 20% Range 50 to 100 Thousand / sq. km.
No. Name of UCs No. Name of UCs
Category–2 Faqirabad, Kakshal-1, Karim Akhunabad, Andhar Sher, Dheri

Pura, Landi Arbab, Shaheen Bhagmanan, Gunj, Jahangir Pura,
08 Muslim Town 1, Tehkal Payan 08 Karim Pura, Sheikh Junaidabad
–I, University Town and and Wazir Bagh
YakkaToot-3
Category–3 the Range 20 to 30% Range 30 to 50 Thousand / sq. km.

November, 2013 17
Andhar Sher, Asia, Deh Kakshal-1, Lahori, Mahal Terahi -
Bahdar, Gunj, Hazar Khawani 1, Nauthia Jadid, Shaheen Muslim
-2, Jahangir Pura, Khalisa -2, Town 2 and Shahi Bagh
12 06
Shaheen Muslim Town 2,
Tehkal Bala, Tehkal Payan –ii,
Wazir Bagh and YakkaToot-2
the Range 30 to 40% Range 10 to 30 Thousand / sq. km.
Category–4 Akhunabad, Dheri Bhagmanan, Asia, Faqirabad, Hazar Khawani -

Khalisa-1, Mahal Terahi -1, 2, Kakshal-2, Khalisa-1, Mahal
Mahal Terahi-2, Nauthia Terahi-2, Nauthia Qadeem,
08 11
Qadeem, Sikandar Town and Shaheen Muslim Town 1, Sikandar
YakkaToot-1 Town, Tehkal Bala and University
Town
UCs having Open Area %age UCs having Population Density below
above 40 10 Thousand / sq. km.
Hassan Ghari No.1, Hassan Bhanna Mari, Cantt Area 1 & 2,

Category–5 Ghari No.2, Hayatabad No-1, Deh Bahdar, Gulbahar, Hassan
Hayatabad No-2, Hazar Ghari No.1, Hassan Ghari No.2,
Khawani -1, Malkandhir, Hayatabad No-1, Hayatabad No-
11 18
Nauthia Jadid, Palosi, Shaheen 2, Hazar Khawani -1, Khalisa -2,
Town, Shahi Bagh and Sheikh Landi Arbab, Malkandhir, Palosi,
Junaidabad Pawaka, Shaheen Town, Tehkal
Payan –I and Tehkal Payan -ii
Based on the density wise congested situation and availability of meager open areas in certain of the
urban UCs, the migration trend of the people from congested to scarcely populated area of other
adjacent UCs is very common in District Peshawar. Resultantly the development of new housing
schemes as already explained in para 2.5 above, is being widely accepted by the public. The unit cost
of the land which also comparatively rising on a very fast track in the densely populated area, is
another major cause highly influencing the migration to the new areas, mostly the new housing
schemes. It has been also observed that the houses in the existing congested areas are sold to the
new owners who are further converting these into smaller units with vertical rise above than two
stories for more earning through renting such units.
Based on above discussion it can be easily perceived that the future growth trend in the most of the
UCs of the project area would most probably follow the following trends:
• Some of the UCs having very small %age of their open areas and already over populated shall
have no additional area for the future growth of their respective population. Contrary to this
situation, there are also a No. of certain Urban UCs which are having quite spacious %age of
their open areas not only accommodate their own future growth, but are also having the
capacity to accommodate the additional population growth of the other areas.
• Also as indicated in para 2.5 above, there can be no restriction on confining the additional
future population of the UCs in the limits of their own UCs. Hence shifting of such population
to the new housing scheme or cheaper open land available in the other attached UCs, a

November, 2013 18
practice being commonly observed at present, will also undoubtedly continue in the future as
well.
• Also there is now a common trend of raising multistory building both in the commercial and
residential area of Peshawar City. Accordingly a No. of plazas of minimum five story above
have been constructed in the past 5 to 10 year period while so many are under construction
particularly in the prominent commercial areas like University Road, Khyber Bazar, Cantt area
and on both side of the Main Trunk Road of the City. Similar is also the situation in residential
area of the city.
• The situation about the future growth in rural areas does not seem to be more complex,
except some justifiable distribution of the surplus population of the attached urban areas in
these UCs.
On the basis of said ground realities, there can be no constant rationales which can be equally
applied to all the UCs for the purpose of evaluation of their future projected population and
densities (in the years 2022 & 2032). Hence there cannot be a justifiable prediction to forecast
exactly the net population of each UC at the end of design period i.e. year 2022 and 2032 except
having different solutions on the basis of adopting various criteria as is being explained in the
following para of this report.
2.8 PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITY IN VARIOUS UCs OF THE

STUDY AREAS IN 2032
As explained in para 2.4, the total population of the project area in the year 1998 was 1,469,983
person (Urban 982,816 & Rural 487,167) and the projected population in the year 2032 has been
estimated as 3,655,593 (Urban 2,444,093 & Rural 1,211,500). The UC wise projection of future
population in accordance to different criteria, are given as below:
Proposal No. 1 Based on Criterion A

Criterion A
Based on assumption that each Urban UC will accommodate its own additional population due to horizontal
and vertical growth in their projected area while the future populated rural area will increase proportionately
to the relevant increase in population in each UC keeping the present and future densities at constant level.
The future projected population and their details for the Urban and Rural UCs of the project area
on the criteria a stated in para (1) above, are separately given below in Tables 2.9 & 2.10.

November, 2013 19
Table 2-9
Projected Population on the Basis of Accommodating the Future Urban Population Growth within the Limits of the Same UC
1998 2032
Total
Density / *1 70% of Populated Density /
Area Populated Open Open Area Population in
Population Sq. Km Total Area for Sq. Km
(Sq. Km) Area Area %age Year 2032
Sr. (1998) Area Projected (2032)
UC Name
No Population
Figure from
I or E where E
Original Original Original D-E F/D*100 C/E 0.7*D Tables 2.5 & J/K
exceed than I
2.6
C D E F G H I J K L
1 Akhunabad 24,100 0.3995 0.26 0.140 34.93 92,692 0.280 59,933 0.280 214,291
2 Andhar Sher 17,099 0.4552 0.32 0.135 29.70 53,434 0.319 42,522 0.319 133,448
3 Asia 25,752 1.1098 0.87 0.240 21.60 29,600 0.777 64,041 0.777 82,439
4 Bhanna Mari 17,637 2.0577 2.00 0.058 2.80 8,819 1.440 43,860 2.000 21,930
5
Cantt Area 1 & 2 68,740 13.6152 13.2 0.415 3.05 5,208 9.531 170,944 13.200 12,950
6
7 Deh Bahdar 23,138 6.5686 4.8 1.769 26.93 4,820 4.598 57,540 4.598 12,514
8 Dheri Bhagmanan 17,351 0.4940 0.31 0.184 37.25 55,971 0.346 43,149 0.346 124,770
9 Faqirabad 16,351 0.8512 0.7 0.151 17.76 23,359 0.596 40,662 0.700 58,089
10 Gunj 18,685 0.3122 0.23 0.082 26.34 81,239 0.219 46,466 0.219 212,596
11 Gulbahar 18,492 2.4589 2.3 0.159 6.46 8,040 1.721 45,986 2.300 19,994
12 Hassan Ghari No.1 21,613 7.8759 3.5 4.376 55.56 6,175 5.513 53,748 5.513 9,749
13 Hassan Ghari No.2 18,641 13.7208 2.49 11.231 81.85 7,486 9.605 46,357 9.605 4,827
14 Hayatabad No-1 14,986 8.6685 4.7 3.968 45.78 3,189 6.068 37,268 6.068 6,142
15 Hayatabad No-2 17,753 16.4837 5.8 10.684 64.81 3,061 11.539 44,149 11.539 3,826
16 Hazar Khawani -1 20,720 8.6653 4.3 4.365 50.38 4,819 6.066 51,527 6.066 8,495
17 Hazar Khawani -2 25,330 1.9818 1.4 0.582 29.36 18,093 1.387 62,991 1.387 45,406
18 Jahangir Pura 19,105 0.4546 0.34 0.115 25.21 56,191 0.318 47,511 0.318 149,310
19 Kakshal-1 19,222 0.5092 0.45 0.059 11.63 42,716 0.356 47,802 0.450 106,226
20 Kakshal-2 18,998 0.7638 0.71 0.054 7.04 26,758 0.535 47,245 0.710 66,542
21 Karim Pura 16,666 0.2982 0.24 0.058 19.51 69,442 0.209 41,445 0.240 172,689
22 Khalisa-1 15,861 1.7518 1.2 0.552 31.50 13,218 1.226 39,444 1.226 32,166
23 Khalisa -2 22,711 3.5138 2.6 0.914 26.01 8,735 2.460 56,478 2.460 22,962
24 Lahori 18,429 0.6607 0.61 0.051 7.67 30,211 0.462 45,830 0.610 75,131
25 Landi Arbab 22,032 3.6419 3.1 0.542 14.88 7,107 2.549 54,790 3.100 17,674
26 Mahal Terahi -1 23,504 1.0398 0.7 0.340 32.68 33,577 0.728 58,450 0.728 80,308
27 Mahal Terahi-2 32,634 1.9078 1.2 0.708 37.10 27,195 1.335 81,155 1.335 60,770
28 Malkandhir 20,467 18.1602 10.16 8.000 44.05 2,014 12.712 50,898 12.712 4,004
29 Nauthia Qadeem 21,887 1.7405 1.2 0.540 31.05 18,239 1.218 54,429 1.218 44,675

November, 2013 20
Table 2-9
Projected Population on the Basis of Accommodating the Future Urban Population Growth within the Limits of the Same UC
1998 2032
Total
Density / *1 70% of Populated Density /
Area Populated Open Open Area Population in
Population Sq. Km Total Area for Sq. Km
(Sq. Km) Area Area %age Year 2032
Sr. (1998) Area Projected (2032)
UC Name
No Population
Figure from
I or E where E
Original Original Original D-E F/D*100 C/E 0.7*D Tables 2.5 & J/K
exceed than I
2.6
C D E F G H I J K L
30 Nauthia Jadid 23,295 1.0169 0.6 0.417 41.00 38,825 0.712 57,931 0.712 81,380
31 Palosi 22,528 12.7309 2.32 10.411 81.78 9,710 8.912 56,023 8.912 6,287
32 Pawaka 24,817 3.1585 2.9 0.259 8.18 8,558 2.211 61,716 2.900 21,281
Shaheen Muslim Town
33 19,268 0.7591 0.647 0.112 14.76 29,781 0.531 47,916 0.647 74,059
1
Shaheen Muslim Town
34 21,495 0.7218 0.53 0.192 26.58 40,557 0.505 53,454 0.505 105,791
2
35 Shaheen Town 25,749 9.3448 5.2 4.145 44.35 4,952 6.541 64,033 6.541 9,789
36 Shahi Bagh 18,147 0.7901 0.40 0.390 49.38 45,368 0.553 45,128 0.553 81,593
37 Sheikh Junaidabad 22,837 0.7784 0.24 0.538 69.17 95,154 0.545 56,792 0.545 104,228
38 Sikandar Town 19,687 1.1488 0.76 0.389 33.84 25,904 0.804 48,958 0.804 60,882
39 Tehkal Bala 26,178 2.1394 1.5 0.639 29.89 17,452 1.498 65,100 1.498 43,471
40 Tehkal Payan -i 18,550 3.3525 2.73 0.623 18.57 6,795 2.347 46,131 2.730 16,898
41 Tehkal Payan -ii 15,961 3.0476 2.3 0.748 24.53 6,940 2.133 39,692 2.133 18,606
42 University Town 18,581 2.2301 1.8 0.430 19.29 10,323 1.561 46,208 1.800 25,671
43 Wazir Bagh 24,768 0.5956 0.42 0.176 29.48 58,971 0.417 61,594 0.417 147,731
44 YakkaToot-1 16,719 0.1653 0.11 0.055 33.43 151,991 0.116 41,577 0.116 359,427
45 YakkaToot-2 26,230 0.1527 0.11 0.043 27.97 238,455 0.107 65,229 0.107 610,221
46 YakkaToot-3 20,102 0.1397 0.120 0.020 14.07 167,517 0.098 49,990 0.120 416,585
Total 982,816 162.433 92.38 70.06 - - 113.703 2,444,093 121.062
Total Additional Population = 1,461,277
Total Additional Populated Area = 21.33
*1 Assumption of 70% of the total area of each UC for its future populated area while the rest 30% left for other infrastructure like road, mosque, schools and hospital etc.

November, 2013 21
Table 2-10
Projected Population on the Basis of Accommodating the Future Rural Population Growth within the Limits of
the Same UC
1998 2032
Total
Sr. Open Density / Population Populated
UC Name Area Populated Open
No Population Area Sq. Km in Year Area for
(Sq Km) Area Area
%age (1998) 2032 Projected
Population
Figure
from
Original Original Original D-E F/D*100 C/E
Tables 2.5
& 2.6
C D E F G H J K
1 Achni Bala 27,891 20.6525 3.950 16.702 80.87 7,061 69,360 9.823
Badaber
2 16,442 38.9160 4.325 34.592 88.89 3,802 40,888 10.754
Maryumzai
3 Bazid Khel 26,422 4.8377 2.700 2.138 44.19 9,786 65,707 6.714
4 Chamkanni 20,977 7.6070 1.573 6.034 79.32 13,335 52,166 3.912
5 Dag 23,210 6.2800 0.643 5.637 89.77 36,113 57,719 1.598
6 Khazana 23,387 16.9990 2.487 14.512 85.37 9,403 58,159 6.185
7 Masho Gaggar 30,728 26.5400 3.923 22.617 85.22 7,833 76,415 9.756
8 Mathra 28,958 21.2250 3.215 18.010 84.85 9,006 72,014 7.996
9 Maira Sorizai Payan 16,745 12.9950 3.624 9.371 72.11 4,620 41,642 9.013
10 Musazai 17,319 16.3502 3.420 12.930 79.08 5,064 43,069 8.505
11 Larama 15,272 1.8550 0.983 0.872 47.01 15,536 37,979 2.445
12 Pajaggi 22,903 6.7680 1.391 5.377 79.45 16,468 56,956 3.459
13 Pakha Ghulam 20,000 8.5480 2.154 6.394 74.80 9,284 49,737 5.357
14 Pushtakhara 25,174 9.8616 2.120 7.742 78.50 11,875 62,603 5.272
15 Regi 25,532 15.0096 3.200 11.810 78.68 7,979 63,494 7.958
16 Surband 22,093 8.7997 1.540 7.260 82.50 14,346 54,941 3.830
17 Shahi Bala 20,911 26.5240 2.977 23.548 88.78 7,025 52,002 7.402
18 Sheikh Muhammadi 27,748 15.5880 2.853 12.735 81.69 9,725 69,004 7.096
19 Shekhan 26,375 51.9870 1.653 50.334 96.82 15,952 65,590 4.112
20 Sufaid Dheri 29,668 15.6163 7.700 7.916 50.69 3,853 73,779 19.149
21 Wadpaga 19,412 11.0980 2.734 8.364 75.36 7,100 48,274 6.799
Total 487,167 344.058 59.166 284.89 - - 1,211,500 147.135
Total Additional Population = 724,333
Total Additional Populated Area= 87.969
Proposal No. 2 Based on Criterion B
Criterion B
Based on assumption that the Urban UC falling open area %age wise in category 1, 2 & 3 (as mentioned in
para 2.6) will retain their constant status both with respect original populated areas and densities while their
additional future population will adjust itself in other UCs falling in category 4 & 5 of Urban UCs as well as
the total surrounding Rural UCs.
The above assumption is based on the facts that currently the Urban and attach Rural UCs of the
project area reflect no distinction with respect to availability of all social and municipal services in
both the areas. The other relevant factors supporting the above assumption, have already been
discussed in detail in paras 2.5 & 2.6.
Accordingly the original future and projected population of the UCs of the category 1, 2 & 3 will
remain the same while the additional population of such UCs will be distributed amongst the other
Urban and Rural UCs proportionately to the available open areas of such UCs.
1. Accordingly the future projected population and their details for the Urban and Rural UCs of
the project area on the criteria a stated in para (2. Criterion B) above, are separately given
below in Tables 2.11 & 2.12.

November, 2013 22
Table 2-11
Projected Population on the Basis of Keeping Constant Populated Area and Density of UC Falling in Category 1, 2 & 3
1998 2032
Density *
Area Density /
Populated Open / Sq. Population Increase in
Population (Sq. Sq. Km
Area Area Km in Year Population
Sr. Km) (2032)
UC Name (1998) 2032
No
Figure from
Original Original Original D-E C/E G Tables 2.5 & I-C
2.6
C D E F G H I J
1 Andhar Sher 17,099 0.4552 0.32 0.135 53,434 53,434 42,522 25,423
2 Asia 25,752 1.1098 0.87 0.240 29,600 29,600 64,041 38,289
3 Bhanna Mari 17,637 2.0577 2.00 0.058 8,819 8,819 43,860 26,223
4
Cantt Area 1 & 2 68,740 13.6152 13.2 0.415 5,208 5,208 170,944 102,204
5
6 Deh Bahdar 23,138 6.5686 4.8 1.769 4,820 4,820 57,540 34,402
7 Faqirabad 16,351 0.8512 0.7 0.151 23,359 23,359 40,662 24,311
8 Gunj 18,685 0.3122 0.23 0.082 81,239 81,239 46,466 27,781
9 Gulbahar 18,492 2.4589 2.3 0.159 8,040 8,040 45,986 27,494
10 Hassan Ghari No.2 18,641 13.7208 2.49 11.231 7,486 7,486 46,357 27,716
11 Jahangir Pura 19,105 0.4546 0.34 0.115 56,191 56,191 47,511 28,406
12 Kakshal-1 19,222 0.5092 0.45 0.059 42,716 42,716 47,802 28,580
13 Kakshal-2 18,998 0.7638 0.71 0.054 26,758 26,758 47,245 28,247
14 Karim Pura 16,666 0.2982 0.24 0.058 69,442 69,442 41,445 24,779
15 Khalisa -2 22,711 3.5138 2.6 0.914 8,735 8,735 56,478 33,767
16 Lahori 18,429 0.6607 0.61 0.051 30,211 30,211 45,830 27,401
17 Landi Arbab 22,032 3.6419 3.1 0.542 7,107 7,107 54,790 32,758
18 Pawaka 24,817 3.1585 2.9 0.259 8,558 8,558 61,716 36,899
Shaheen Muslim Town
19 19,268 0.7591 0.647 0.112 29,781 29,781 47,916
1 28,648
Shaheen Muslim Town
20 21,495 0.7218 0.53 0.192 40,557 40,557 53,454
2 31,959
21 Tehkal Bala 26,178 2.1394 1.5 0.639 17,452 17,452 65,100 38,922
22 Tehkal Payan -i 18,550 3.3525 2.73 0.623 6,795 6,795 46,131 27,581
23 Tehkal Payan -ii 15,961 3.0476 2.3 0.748 6,940 6,940 39,692 23,731
24 University Town 18,581 2.2301 1.8 0.430 10,323 10,323 46,208 27,627
25 Wazir Bagh 24,768 0.5956 0.42 0.176 58,971 58,971 61,594 36,826
26 YakkaToot-2 26,230 0.1527 0.11 0.043 238,455 238,455 65,229 38,999
27 YakkaToot-3 20,102 0.1397 0.120 0.020 167,517 167,517 49,990 29,888
Total 577,648 67.289 48.02 19.27 - - 1,436,510 858,862
* Not needed in this tbale but for calculating the additional population which is to be shifted to the other UCs

November, 2013 23
Table 2-12
Projected Population of 40 No. UCs (Urban + Rural) on the Basis of Accommodating the Additional Population of 27 Urban Category 1, 2, & 3 UCs on the Ratio of Proportionate of Open Areas
1998 2032
Distribution
of * Distribution of
Density Increase in Population Additional Actual Population
Open
Area Populated Open / Sq. Population Original of Column J Population of 27 of UC in 2032 on
Population Area
(Sq. Km) Area Area Km in Year 2032 Population in the UCs in the Ratio of the Basis of
Sr. %age
UC Name (1998) of the UCs Ration of Open Area of Each Column C + K +L
No
Open Area UC
of each UC
Figure from F / F Total * Total of
F / F Total *
Original Original Original D-E F/D*100 C/E Tables 2.5 & I-C Column J Table No. C+K+L
J Total
2.6 2.11
C D E F G H I J K L M
1 Akhunabad 24,100 0.3995 0.26 0.140 34.93 92,692 59,933 35,833 552 357 25,009
2 Dheri Bhagmanan 17,351 0.4940 0.31 0.184 37.25 55,971 43,149 25,798 727 471 18,549
3 Hassan Ghari No.1 21,613 7.8759 3.5 4.376 55.56 6,175 53,748 32,135 17,296 11,196 50,105
4 Hayatabad No-1 14,986 8.6685 4.7 3.968 45.78 3,189 37,268 22,282 15,685 10,154 40,825
5 Hayatabad No-2 17,753 16.4837 5.8 10.684 64.81 3,061 44,149 26,396 42,227 27,335 87,315
6 Hazar Khawani -1 20,720 8.6653 4.3 4.365 50.38 4,819 51,527 30,807 17,254 11,169 49,142
7 Hazar Khawani -2 25,330 1.9818 1.4 0.582 29.36 18,093 62,991 37,661 2,300 1,489 29,118
8 Khalisa-1 15,861 1.7518 1.2 0.552 31.50 13,218 39,444 23,583 2,181 1,412 19,454
9 Mahal Terahi -1 23,504 1.0398 0.7 0.340 32.68 33,577 58,450 34,946 1,343 869 25,716
10 Mahal Terahi-2 32,634 1.9078 1.2 0.708 37.10 27,195 81,155 48,521 2,798 1,811 37,242
11 Malkandhir 20,467 18.1602 10.16 8.000 44.05 2,014 50,898 30,431 31,621 20,469 72,557
12 Nauthia Qadeem 21,887 1.7405 1.2 0.540 31.05 18,239 54,429 32,542 2,136 1,383 25,406
13 Nauthia Jadid 23,295 1.0169 0.6 0.417 41.00 38,825 57,931 34,636 1,648 1,067 26,010
14 Palosi 22,528 12.7309 2.32 10.411 81.78 9,710 56,023 33,495 41,149 26,637 90,314
15 Shaheen Town 25,749 9.3448 5.2 4.145 44.35 4,952 64,033 38,284 16,382 10,605 52,736
16 Shahi Bagh 18,147 0.7901 0.40 0.390 49.38 45,368 45,128 26,981 1,542 998 20,687
17 Sheikh Junaidabad 22,837 0.7784 0.24 0.538 69.17 95,154 56,792 33,955 2,128 1,378 26,343
18 Sikandar Town 19,687 1.1488 0.76 0.389 33.84 25,904 48,958 29,271 1,537 995 22,218
19 YakkaToot-1 16,719 0.1653 0.11 0.055 33.43 151,991 41,577 24,858 218 141 17,079
20 Achni Bala 27,891 20.6525 3.950 16.702 80.87 7,061 69,360 41,469 66,016 42,735 136,642
21 Badaber Maryumzai 16,442 38.9160 4.325 34.592 88.89 3,802 40,888 24,446 136,722 88,506 241,670
22 Bazid Khel 26,422 4.8377 2.700 2.138 44.19 9,786 65,707 39,285 8,449 5,470 40,341
23 Chamkanni 20,977 7.6070 1.573 6.034 79.32 13,335 52,166 31,189 23,849 15,438 60,264
24 Dag 23,210 6.2800 0.643 5.637 89.77 36,113 57,719 34,509 22,281 14,424 59,915
25 Khazana 23,387 16.9990 2.487 14.512 85.37 9,403 58,159 34,772 57,358 37,130 117,875
26 Masho Gaggar 30,728 26.5400 3.923 22.617 85.22 7,833 76,415 45,687 89,393 57,868 177,988
27 Mathra 28,958 21.2250 3.215 18.010 84.85 9,006 72,014 43,056 71,182 46,079 146,220
28 Maira Sorizai Payan 16,745 12.9950 3.624 9.371 72.11 4,620 41,642 24,897 37,037 23,976 77,758
29 Musazai 17,319 16.3502 3.420 12.930 79.08 5,064 43,069 25,750 51,106 33,083 101,509
30 Larama 15,272 1.8550 0.983 0.872 47.01 15,536 37,979 22,707 3,447 2,231 20,950
31 Pajaggi 22,903 6.7680 1.391 5.377 79.45 16,468 56,956 34,053 21,253 13,758 57,914
Master Plan Engineering Criteria # 15

November, 2013 24
32 Pakha Ghulam 20,000 8.5480 2.154 6.394 74.80 9,284 49,737 29,737 25,271 16,359 61,630
33 Pushtakhara 25,174 9.8616 2.120 7.742 78.50 11,875 62,603 37,429 30,598 19,808 75,580
34 Regi 25,532 15.0096 3.200 11.810 78.68 7,979 63,494 37,962 46,677 30,216 102,425
35 Surband 22,093 8.7997 1.540 7.260 82.50 14,346 54,941 32,848 28,694 18,575 69,361
36 Shahi Bala 20,911 26.5240 2.977 23.548 88.78 7,025 52,002 31,091 93,071 60,249 174,230
37 Sheikh Muhammadi 27,748 15.5880 2.853 12.735 81.69 9,725 69,004 41,256 50,333 32,583 110,664
38 Shekhan 26,375 51.9870 1.653 50.334 96.82 15,952 65,590 39,215 198,942 128,784 354,101
39 Sufaid Dheri 29,668 15.6163 7.700 7.916 50.69 3,853 73,779 44,111 31,289 20,255 81,212
40 Wadpaga 19,412 11.0980 2.734 8.364 75.36 7,100 48,274 28,862 33,058 21,400 73,869
Total 892,335 439.202 103.53 335.68 - - 2,219,083 1,326,748 1,326,748 858,862 3,077,945
* Total figure of 58862 as addition apopulation of 27 UCs .
2.9 CONCLUSION
NDC recommend strongly Proposal No. 2 for the projected population of PMPP area.
2.10 REFERENCES
• Arif, G.M. and Hamid, S., 2009. Urbanization, City Growth and Quality of Life in Pakistan. European Journal of Social Sciences. Volume 10, No. 2:196-
215.
• IDMC, 2012. Pakistan: Displacement Caused by Conflict and Natural Disasters, Achievements and Challenges. Geneva: IDMC.
• Izhar-ESC-Lalazar 2012. ‘Draft Landuse Plan – District Peshawar’ (unpublished draft prepared for the Department of Housing, Government of
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa).
• Khan, A. 2002. ‘Afghan Refugees Experience of Conflict and Disintegration’ Meridians, 3:1.
• Mosel, I. and Jackson, A., 2013. Sanctuary in the City? Urban displacement and vulnerability in Peshawar, Pakistan. Humanitarian Policy Group
Working Paper. Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, UK. 40 pp.
• Shehbaz, 2012. Defining a Comprehensive City Boundary: Peshawar City; Consultancy Services for Establishment of City Wide Water and Sanitation
Utility in Peshawar, USAID Cooperative Agreement No. 391-A-00-09-01128-00, 27 February.
• Turton, D. and Marsden, P., 2002. Taking Refugees for a Ride? The Politics of Refugee Return to Afghanistan, Afghan Research and Evaluation Unit:
Issue Paper Series.
• UNDP, 2012. Social Audit of Local Governance and Delivery of Public Services, Pakistan National Report.
• UNHCR, 2005. Census of Afghans in Pakistan. Islamabad.
• UNHCR, 2012b. KP and FATA IDP Statistics (As of 01 Dec 2012).
• UNHCR, 2012c. UNHCR Global Appeal 2013 Update - Pakistan, December 2012.
• UNHCR/SAFRON/CCAR, 2012. Population Profiling, Verification and Response Survey of Afghans in Pakistan. Final Report.

November, 2013 25
3.0 DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
This section presents planning level engineering criteria for improving the water supply system
serving the study area. This information will be used to estimate future water demand and determine
infrastructure requirements to meet current and future needs.
3.1 GOVERNING WATER SYSTEM POLICIES & GUIDELINES
Provisions for adequate service, water supply, treatment, storage, transmission and distribution are
necessary to preserve and promote the general health, welfare, and economic well-being of the
community within its service area. The development of water system in the study area will be
governed by the policies planning policies and the design criteria contained herein.
3.1.1 Planning Policy

In Pakistan, drinking water policy is the constitutional responsibility of provincial governments.
Municipal utilities are accountable to both the provincial and local governments. The federal
government is only involved in policy development and the setting of guidelines, mostly through the
Ministry of Climate Change (formerly called Ministry of Environment). A National Drinking Water
and Sanitation policy was developed in 2009 followed by a committee for its implementation.
Water is a finite and essential resource, the use of which needs to be regulated and measured in
order to avoid wastage and misuse. Resource allocation for provision and conservation of drinking
water should be developed and be based on a need based criteria with the aim of creating an
equitable distribution among users in KP. The community, particularly in rural areas, should be
organized and provided administrative, technical and financial backup in order to effectively operate
and maintain rural water supply schemes. Public service provision institutions (Public Health
Engineering Department (PHED), Peshawar Development Authority (PDA), Municipal Corporation
Peshawar (MC), Peshawar Cantonment Board (PCB) and others) should follow a reform program
which will be based on rationalization of tariff, reduction of inefficiency cost and improvement of
service delivery. Based on other policies in Pakistan, the following policy principles are
recommended for Peshawar KP:
 To recognize that access to safe drinking water is the basic human right of every citizen and
that it is the responsibility of the state to ensure its provision to all citizens. The right to
water for drinking takes precedence over rights for water for all other uses such as
environment, agriculture, industry etc.
 To recognize the role of the broad range of service providers in the sector and provide a
supportive policy framework that encourages alternate options through private provision,
public-private partnerships, the role of NGOs and community organizations.
 To fashion the role of the state in a manner which distinguishes between its functions as a
service provider and the authority it must exercise as a regulator.
 To ensure that the existing inequities in the provision of safe drinking water are removed and
the needs of the more vulnerable and poor are effectively addressed through adequate
financial allocations and provisions of suitable technological options. There will be an equitable
distribution of resources between the richer and poorer sections of human settlements.
However, preference will be given to those areas where the environmental and social impact
of investments shall be the maximum. Saving underground water aquifer as well as surface
water from contamination of all kinds will be given top priority through legislation/regulation
as well as increasing public awareness. Areas where drinking water is scarce or contaminated
will be given priority.
 To recognize the key role that women play in the drinking water sector and ensure their
participation in decision-making for the sector at all levels. The needs of women and children

November, 2013 26
are to be given priority in all policy, planning and implementation processes.
 To recognize the provision of safe water should be undertaken through a community-
centered, demand-driven approach in which the community members are given a key role.
Development has to be sustainable. To achieve this, in the absence of effective institutions, it
is necessary to: build on what exists, mobilize local resources, minimize foreign loans and
develop programmes that are implementable within available resources and enhanced
capacities of institutions and communities; understand, accept and support the role that
communities, NGOs and the formal and informal sector are playing in water supply and
sanitation provision; accept the component-sharing model for all government programmes
and projects so as to ensure financial sustainability, and community and private sector
involvement in development and subsequent to O&M; and develop and use technologies that
are low cost, easy and cost- effective to maintain.
 To reflect feedback from the stakeholder consultation on designs, plans for recovery of O&M
costs generated at the local level through a combination of affordable taxes (on a sliding scale)
and by assigning O&M responsibilities to community organizations (ADB, 2006).
3.1.2 Design Policy

Review of different policies documents suggest that prior to design of any water supply system
works, one must establish the length of time the works will serve the community before it is
abandoned or replaced. For example, an storage reservoir may be constructed to serve for 30 years,
or the capacity of a water purification plant of rapid and slow sand filter may be designed to meet
needs over a 20 to 25 year horizon. These periods are known as periods of design, and they have an
important bearing upon the amounts of funds that may be invested in construction of the works.
Since most cities are growing in population, the design period depends mainly upon the rate of
population growth.
The economic design period of a structure depends upon its life, first cost, ease of expansion,
likelihood of obsolescence. In connection with the design, the water consumption at the end of the
period must be estimated. Overdesign is not conservative since it may burden a relatively small
community with the cost of extravagant works designed for a far larger population. Different
segments of the water supply and distribution systems may be appropriately designed for differing
periods of time using different capacity criteria through best engineering practices.
The process of planning and design involves the preparation of a number of separate documents in
several stages. The number and complexity of the documents depends on the complexity of the
works. The planning and design of new water treatment plants, for instance, requires the
preparation of several reports, technical specifications and many drawings. On the other hand, the
design of a water main extension may only require preparation of a single engineering drawing with
the basis of design and specifications included on its face. Planning and design generally involve the
following three stages:
Stage 1 – Special Services including feasibility and pre-design investigations to determine the best
alternative approach to meet the project objectives. Normally, Stage 1 will include feasibility studies,
master plans and other special services.
Stage 2 – Preliminary Design and Reports should include preliminary design information and reports
in the form of drawings and documents outlining the nature of the project, a summary of the basis of
the engineering design, a preliminary cost estimate and a description of the extent of services and
recommendations. In some cases, Stage 2 documents may be prepared as part of the Environmental
Study Report (ESR) under the EPA. This work is also identified as the preliminary engineering report,
but should not be confused with feasibility studies which are completed in Stage1.
Stage 3 – Detailed Design, Final Drawings and Specifications, includes preparation of a design brief;
final plans (detailed engineering drawings); specifications (construction requirements, materials and

November, 2013 27
equipment); a final cost estimate; and documents required for approval or permit applications (e.g.,
permits to take water and for construction, liquid waste and air discharges, stream crossings etc.).
Report outlining operational requirements may also be required.
3.2 TYPES OF SERVICE
The types of service for the water supply system in the study area are classified keeping in view all
type of safety measures to the end user.
3.2.1 Domestic
This includes water furnished to households for, drinking, washing, bathing, watering lawns, house
washing and sanitary purposes.
3.2.2 Commercial and Industrial

Water furnished to industrial and commercial facilities.
3.2.3 Public Use

Public buildings such as government buildings, jails and schools as well as public service such as
flushing streets and fire protection.
3.2.4 Household Connections

The pipe extending from the mains to the consumer’s meter, or curb stop if no meter is used, is
known as the service pipe. With the high grade paving now in use, service pipes must be durable, or
repairs will necessitate expensive and unsightly breaks in the paving. Standardised straps should be
used for household service connections through licenced technician/plumbers. Preferably in the
energized system under pressure tapping and drilling machinery be utilized for the safeguard of the
distribution system. In case water meter is installed for making the actual consumption/usage, proper
meter/surface box should be provided at the entrance of the house. The meter/surface box should
have all type of access for the reading staff of the public utility.
3.2.5 Communal Taps

The public taps are the most frequently used and most visible features of the rural water system. A
well designed tap will account for local water usage customs and traditions. Communal taps should
not be provided in urban areas, as it is wastage of water and revenue. In rural areas, these taps
should only be provided in those rural areas where house-to-house connections are not possible
and revenue is collected from each household without giving connection in the houses, otherwise
the scheme will never be sustainable. Each public tap should be designed to serve about 200 persons.
3.3 WATER DEMAND PROJECTION
The average daily per capita water consumption depends upon a number of important factors
including size of service area, its cost, its pressure, the climate, characteristics of the population, and
efficiency of the waterworks administration. At present, the record of per capita water
supply/demand, including domestic, industrial, commercial, institutional and public demands is not
available with any organization. Therefore NDC has done extensive literature review to find out
design criteria which are being used in different cities of Pakistan and the region.
Water demand projections for the future needs to consider unaccounted for water (UFW) that is
lost through leakages in the water supply installations such as distribution network, transmission
mains and water consumed through unauthorized connections. In systems of moderately maintained,
the unaccounted amount of water (that also includes administrative losses like faulty meters, water
theft etc. in addition to physical leaks) is around 20 percent, and in poorly managed systems, it is

November, 2013 28
more than 30 percent, sometime around 50 percent of total consumption. However, 20 percent
allowance has been proposed to project demand for the project time domain.
3.3.1 Domestic Demand

Water production and consumption records for Peshawar are not being maintained by the service
provider departments/institutions. However effort has been made to assess water consumption
(Refer Deliverable-11) and made basis for projecting per capita per day water requirements. Past
studies have also indicated that with the exception of flow measurement at the Bara WTP, records
for production/bulk metering at tube wells and consumer metering are not maintained.
The analyses of rated discharge of installed pumps at duty points conducted by NDC have revealed
(Appendix 3-1) that the consumption is 156 liters/capita/day (lpcd) in case of 100 percent population
coverage. However, if the population coverage of water supply is taken as 90 percent and 80
percent, the per capita consumption comes out to be 173 lpcd and 195 lpcd, respectively (Appendix
3-3). Actual discharge measurement revealed 21 percent increase in the rated discharge (Appendix
3-2). Keeping in view all these facts, figures and limitations, NDC has proposed 205 lpcd for urban
and 136 lpcd for rural (136 for sewerage facilities and 68 lpcd for on-site sanitation) inclusive of
unaccounted water and fire flows demand etc. NDC has also conducted meetings with community
and different stakeholders to discuss demand projections.
Based on above, a comparison of design criteria recommended by different organizations and NDC
recommendations for the Peshawar city is given in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Water Demand Criteria (lpcd)
NDC
Land Use
JICA Study, Lahore

Recommend
CRISP Study for
Plan Izhar
NESPAK 2012
PHED Punjab
Cantonment,
ation
Peshawar
Town-1
WASA
Lahore
Demand
ESC
Urban
Urban
Rural
Include Rural
domestic,
non- 159 159-182 205
domestic,
unaccounted 205 136*/
386 364 205
Domestic 187 182 68 68**
Non-
Domestic 38
Unaccounted 38 41
Total (lpcd) 263 159 159-182 205 182 68 386 364 205 246 136
*With sewerage facilities
**Without sewerage facilities/onsite sanitation
3.3.2 Non-Domestic Demand

Non-domestic demand comprises:

November, 2013 29
 Commercial and Industrial use
 Public
No detailed study has been carried out in Peshawar regarding the calculation of non-domestic
demand except Land use plan by Izhar. Mott MacDonald and Nipon Koei, 2012 has studied non-
domestic demand for Sukker. Central Public Health and Environment Engineering Organization
(CPHEEO), Government of India has recommended the criteria for Raipur and PHED of Punjab has
also given recommendation as given in Table 3.2.
Water requirements for commercial and industrial areas i.e. hospitals, school & colleges, hotels etc.
shall be calculated based on the number of beds in hospitals & hotels, number of teachers & students
in the schools & colleges and people working in the commercial areas. By reviewing these studies
and consulting the stakeholders, NDC recommendations for Peshawar are given in Table 3.2.
Table 3-2
Institutional Demand
Land Use PHED, NDC
Demand (lpcd) Sukker Raipur
Plan Izhar Punjab Peshawar
Commercial (lpcd) 68 45 45
Hospital (l/bed) 500 450 450
Schools and colleges (lpcd) 46 45 45
Mosques (lpcd) 20 20
23 45
Parks gardens (l/ft2) 0.8 1
Hotels (l/bed) 180 180
Stadium (lpcd) 15 15
Bus Terminal (lpcd) 45 45
Fire Flows
Fire flows demands were also discussed with PHED, PDA, MC and Cantonment board of Peshawar.
Based on those discussions, NDC recommendations are summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3
Institutional Demand
PHED, Punjab WASA Lahore NDC
The minimum size of fire hydrants should The minimum size  Fire hydrants may be provided for
be 50 mm. For water supply schemes with recommended for any urban supply schemes. The
design population of up to 10,000 persons water main supplying minimum size of for main
supplying fire hydrants is 150-100
the fire hydrants are to be located at fire hydrants is 150
mm is feasible.
every water works locations, and for mm.  The capacity of the fire hydrant
larger schemes at appropriate locations. to deliver water should not be
Fire hydrants to be provided in less than 32 lps with a minimum
urban/semi urban areas. The capacity if residual pressure of 15 m. NDC
the fire hydrants to deliver water should recommends the criteria of
not be less than 32 LPS. PHED, Punjab.
3.3.3 Peaking Factors

Water consumption changes with seasons, the days of the week and the hours of the day. There are
major seasonal peaks during summer heat and the drought when large volumes of water are drawn
to refresh man and his domestic animals, watering lawns and gardens. Day to day variations reflect
household and industrial activity. Hour to hour fluctuations produce a peak close to noon and a

November, 2013 30
trough in the small hours of the morning. The smaller the community, the more variable is the
demand; shorter the period of flow, the wider is departure from mean. Variations are conveniently
expressed as ratios to the mean. There are large differences between communities.
Common values for peaking factors of water consumption recommended for the Peshawar city are
given in Table 3.4.
Table 3-4
Peaking Factors of Water Consumption
Ratio Normal Range Average
Maximum day to average day 1.2 to 2.0:1 1.5:1
Maximum hour to average hour 2.0 to 3.0:1 2.5:1
3.4 HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
All mains shall be sized to meet required water demands to all points in the system without violating
the pressure, velocity, and head-loss criteria set forth herein. The proposed network shall be
evaluated by the Engineer under the hydraulic conditions stipulated using an approved hydraulic
network analysis model like EPANET.
3.4.1 Operating Pressures and Pressure Zone Characteristics

As a minimum allowance in the distribution system, it is recommended that pipes and joints should
be able to withstand the maximum operating pressure plus the pressure surge that would be created
by stopping of a water column moving at 0.6 to 0.8 m/s (Steel and Terence, 1988). The pressure
created by such an event will vary depending upon the diameter, wall thickness and pipe material
used in the distribution system. Transient analysis should also be undertaken for long transmission
lines.
PHED of Punjab and WASA-Lahore has recommended 14m as the desired terminal pressure for
urban areas and 8m for rural areas. Keeping in view the trends of multi-story’s building construction
it is advisable to adopt at least 14m minimum terminal pressure for urban areas and 8m minimum
terminal pressure for rural areas. Also in case of multi-storey story building, it should be mandatory
to construct an underground storage tank from where water can be lifted to the roof top.
Operating condition supply pressure and velocity is given in Table 3.5.
Table 3-5
Operating Condition Water Supply Pressure
Pressure (m) Velocity Maximum
(m/sec)
Maximum Minimum
Maximum day 28 28 1.62
Maximum day and fire 56 14 3.05
Peak hour 56 21 2.13
3.4.2 Maximum Velocities and Head losses

Velocity recommendations for different sizes of pipes are not given in design criteria’s available in
Pakistan. NDC has recommended velocity of flow in pipes is given in Table 3.6.

November, 2013 31
Table 3-6
Flow Velocities in Main Pipes
Pipe Dia Velocity Q (m3/sec) Velocity (m/sec) Q (m3/sec)
(mm) (m/sec)
Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum
100 0.75 0.005 0.91 0.007

150 0.81 0.014 1.22 0.021
200 0.91 0.028 1.32 0.041
250 0.99 0.048 1.52 0.074
320 1.09 0.087 1.67 0.134
400 1.27 0.159 1.83 0.229
3.4.3 Storage Requirements

Water is stored to equalize pumping rates over the day, to equalize supply and demand over a long
period of high consumption, and to furnish water for such emergencies as firefighting or accidental
breakdowns. In Peshawar most of the storages are elevated, except where direct pumping is used.
Several elevated storages are being used at suitable points. The capacity of the elevated tanks should
be 15 to 20 percent of the maximum daily use water which shall be sufficient for 4 to 6 hours.
Capacities of overhead reservoir should vary from 10,000 to 100,000 imperial gallons. Reservoirs
should also be designed to act as balancing system (combination of direct and through reservoir
supply).
3.5 GENERAL WATER SYSTEM LAYOUT CRITERIA
All water mains and appurtenances shall be installed in public right-of-way or dedicated utility
easements. Water mains shall not be installed parallel to and directly below, any concrete such as
sidewalks, trails, curbs, or gutters, and no manholes or appurtenances shall be located in multi-use
trails and sidewalks.
3.5.1 Horizontal and Vertical Layout

Horizontal separation from potable water mains to storm sewers and sanitary sewers shall be 0.5 m,
edge-to-edge whereas is recommended as minimum 1 m. Water main alignments in utility easements
or tracts between structures (residences, etc.) shall only be allowed for the purpose of looping a
water main at the end of a cul-de-sac, and shall include provisions for a Main-Break Swale as set
forth. Under no circumstances shall water mains be installed directly below any concrete such as
sidewalks, curbs, or gutters, except at 90-degree angles where crossings beneath the concrete
features are required.
The minimum depth of cover for water mains from final grade to the top of the water main shall be
1m. The maximum depth of cover for water mains shall be 5 m from top of pipe to final grade.
Under circumstances where a deeper main would eliminate the need for an air valve, mains may be
constructed with a cover up to 1.3m. Further details of standard practices in Pakistan are given in
Table 3.7.

November, 2013 32
Table 3-7
Primary and Secondary Distribution System
NESPAK, 2012 WASA NDC Peshawar
A minimum pipe cover of 0.9m An earth cover of 1m A minimum pipe cover of 1m

should be provided. However, should be provided over laid will be provided. Under heavy
under road of heavy traffic, it water supply pipe lines of all traffic roads, it will be of 1.5 m.
will be of 1.2 meter. For large sizes except in hilly areas. In case of site restrictions,
pipes of over 1000 mm dia., the Road cuts are to be encasing through steel pipes or
minimum earth cover shall be of backfilled with pit/river sand. stronger pipes like Ductile Iron
1.5 m. etc. should be used.
3.5.2 Easements
Where mains cannot be installed in right-of-way, they shall be located within utility easements and
shall be centered in the easement according to the best site judgment. No permanent structures,
(e.g., retaining walls, trees, light pedestals, sign foundations, power poles, mailboxes, sheds, buildings,
etc.), shall be placed in the easement. Any temporary structures placed in the easement, including
paving and fencing, shall be removed so that maintenance may be performed. Easements or Right of
Way (ROW) across private property may be involved for laying/path-shortening of new pipe lines or
for extending the existing system. In such a case (or cases), procedure under Land Acquisition Act,
Government of Pakistan may be followed.
3.5.3 Utility Crossings

Water pipeline installation near sewer lines, recycled water lines, or storm drains shall be in
accordance with PHED Punjab guidelines. For crossing other utilities, a minimum vertical clearance
of 305 mm shall be provided (outside to outside). Further details of separation distance are given in
Table 3-8.
Table 3-8
Utility Crossings
Pipe Condition Recommendations Rationale
Above-water pipe a. adequately supported;
crossings
b. protected from damage and freezing;
c. accessible for repair or replacement.
When crossing a. The pipes should have flexible watertight joints;
water courses b. Valves shall be provided at both ends of water crossing so
which are greater that the section can be isolated for test or repair; the
than 4.5m (15 valves shall be easily accessible and not subject to flooding; As per
standard
feet) in width: c. Sampling taps should be available at each end of the practice in
crossing; Pakistan
d. Permanent taps should be made for testing and locating
leaks.
Water above sewer Water mains crossing house sewers, storm sewers or sanitary
lines sewers shall be laid to provide a separation of at least 0.5m (18
inches) between the bottom of the water main and the top of the
sewer.
Water below sewer • A vertical separation of at least 0.5m (18 inches) between the

November, 2013 33
Table 3-8
Utility Crossings
Pipe Condition Recommendations Rationale
lines bottom of the sewer and the top of the water main;
• Adequate structural support for the sewers to prevent

excessive deflection of joints and settling on and breaking the
water mains;
• Length of water pipe be centered at the point of crossing so

that the joints will be equidistant and as far as possible from the
sewer.
Sewer Manholes No water pipe shall pass through or come into contact with any
part of a sewer or sewer manhole.
3.6 DESIGN CRITERIA
3.6.1 Minimum Distribution Main Sizing and Valve Spacing

All water mains of 150 mm and larger in diameter shall be classified as "transmission mains". Raw
water lines that run between wells and points of disinfection or purification, regardless of size, shall
also be considered transmission mains. Air and vacuum release valves shall be installed along
transmission mains at all high points and pumping manholes shall be installed at all low points.
Temporary blow-off assemblies shall be installed at all temporary dead- ends along transmission
mains. No service connections, including irrigation taps, shall be permitted on a transmission main.
Transmission main valves shall be butterfly valves, and shall be required on every branch where two
transmission mains connect. Butterfly valves are widely used in both low pressure applications in
filter plants and in distribution systems where pressure may reach 860 kpa (125 psi). These have
numerous advantages over gate valves in large pipe lines, including lower cost, compactness,
minimum friction wear, and ease of operation.
Summary of the above and NDC recommendations are given in Table 3.9. NDC recommendations
are based on general practice in Pakistan.
Table 3-9
Hydraulic Criteria
System PHED WASA Lahore NDC Peshawar
Min. Distribution Plane areas : 80 mm Primary network -mains Main size dia. = 150 to
Main Sizing: 400 mm and larger 100 mm
Hilly areas: 38 mm
Secondary network -
Pacca roads/Street width mains 300mm size and
9m: Distribution pipelines smaller. Secondary network dia.
should preferably be = 75 to 100 mm
provided on both sides of
the roads and street
pavements.
a) Sluice Valves Sluice valves will be located Size Spacing(m) Sluice valves will be
at main control points for (mm) located at main control
balancing and regulating points for balancing and
30 457 to 610

November, 2013 34
Table 3-9
Hydraulic Criteria
System PHED WASA Lahore NDC Peshawar
the flows. 25 274 to 366 regulating the flows.
20 244 to 305
15 183 to 244
10 122 to 183
8 66 to 122
b)No Return Valves Outside the delivery main Outside the delivery
of tube well. In the rising main of tube well. In the
main after 2000 meters. rising main after 2000
meters.
c) Air valves At the summits and after At the highest points and
2000 meter intervals in after 2000 meter
straight reaches to intervals in flat reaches
facilitate escape of trapped to facilitate escape of
air. trapped air.
d) Washouts/scours At the lowest points to At the lowest points to

wash out all kinds of wash out all kinds of
debris. debris/rust etc.
3.6.2 Pipelines
Water Pipeline Sizing Criteria
Minimum size of water distribution pipeline shall be 78 mm. In case where either the width of pacca
roads or the street are more than 9m (30 feet), distribution pipelines should preferably be provided
on both sides of the roads and street pavements.
For maximum hourly flow; pipeline to be sized to provide head losses not to exceed 1.5 m per 305m
of water pipeline as per Pakistan standard to be applied.
Water Pipe Line Curve Data
Water pipeline joints shall not be pulled more than the manufacturer’s recommended offset.
Directional changes for PVC or HDPE pipe may be accomplished by curvature of the water pipeline
itself.
The minimum bending radius for water pipelines is given in Table 3.10.
Table 3-10
Pipe Line Curve Data: PVC and HDPE Pipe Joints
Diameter Minimum Radius
203mm (8") or less 79m (259 ft)
305mm (12") or more 114m (374 ft)

November, 2013 35
3.6.3 Valves
Location
All water distribution systems will be fitted with the valves to ensure that there should not be any
valve placement at more than 403m. At water main intersections there should be three valves at
every tee and four valves at every crossing.
Valves larger than 305 mm shall be butterfly valves, with valve operators located on the north and
east sides of the mains. Main line valves shall generally be located at a point on the main that is
intersected by an extension of the right-of-way line. Where valves cannot be located on right-of-way
lines, valves shall be located 10 m from the connecting tee, cross, or elbow wherever possible, but in
no case shall the distance be less than 5 m. Under no circumstances shall a valve be located in
concrete, such as sidewalks, cross pans, aprons, curbs, or gutters etc.
Valve surface boxes will be brought up to grade at the time of pavement placement or overlay. Any
valve located in an unpaved area should have a reinforced concrete collar around the valve box and
the accompanying marker post. Temporary dead-ends on any water main shall include a temporary
blow-off assembly.
Air Release and Vacuum Valves

Air valves shall be located at all high points of water pipelines; however, air valves shall not be
installed at the end of cul-de-sacs unless the slope of the water pipeline is 5% or greater. Minimum
size of air valves shall be 25 mm and shall be sized as given in Table 3.11.
Table 3-11
Air Valve Sizes
Pipe Diameter Air Valve Size
150 to 200 mm 25mm
305mm, 406mm, 610mm 51mm
762mm 102mm
> 762mm Consult with the service provider
Pressure Reducing Valves

Pressure-reducing valves (PRV) are used to control and maintain pressure between distribution
zones. Downsizing of the main shall not be allowed at the valve. The need for PRV will be based on
existing zones boundaries and the proximity of the existing distribution system to the development.
The number of pressure reducing stations should be minimized in favor of internal looping within the
pressure zone. PRV access hatches should be located outside of roadways. However it is proposed
that the requirement of Pressure reducing valves is to be considered while designing the system
according to terrain elevations.
3.6.4 Meters
At present there is a no metering (production, bulk/domestic) in the study area. While having group
discussion meetings by community staff of NDC, the consumers are totally against metering aspect.
In case at a subsequent stage, there is a need/policy for consumer metering, all service connections
should be metered. All meters will be the property of the Utility. Under no circumstances should
anyone other than Utility personnel remove a water meter once the pit, vault, or authorized inside
installation has been inspected and approved. No connections shall be made in the meter pit other
than those directly related to the meter and bypass. Single-family residential irrigation system

November, 2013 36
connections should be made downstream from the meter with a double check backflow prevention
assembly. No electrical wiring should be allowed in any water meter pit or vault.
3.6.5 Chlorinators
Liquid hypo-chlorinator at source, tubewells and at certain hazardous locations in the water
distribution system are proposed, whereas either of gas or liquid chlorinators are proposed at water
treatment plants especially at the locations, the gas chlorinator are away from the inhabited area.
3.6.6 Manholes
These are installed in reservoirs to serve as entrance during repair, cleaning and maintenance. To
prevent the entry of surface water which may contain pollutants, manholes should be installed
slightly raised above the roof level and must be equipped with an overlaying cover. The cover is also
necessary to prevent the sun’s rays from promoting algae growth.
3.6.7 Backflow Prevention Assemblies

To prevent backflow contamination, a backflow prevention assembly will be installed where
pressures downstream of the water meter could exceed those in the main, and where any unsafe
water or contaminated materials could be discharged, or siphoned into the potable water system.
The assembly will be placed downstream of the water meter. Backflow prevention assemblies should
be installed and located for proper operation of the device, and easy access for annual testing and
maintenance.
3.6.8 Tracer Wire and Warning Tape

Underground warning tape is used to warn anyone digging above any pipe work that there are pipes
below. It is fully weather resistant and is available in detectable and non-detectable versions. The
detectable version contains metal wires so it can easily be detected by metal detectors. It helps to
ensure that buried lines are not accidentally cut, which disrupts the water supply.
3.6.9 Main-Break Swale Design

All water mains to be constructed between structures (residences, businesses, etc.) must have a
“main-break” swale or channel that provides adequate capacity in the event of a water main break.
The swale must be located in a dedicated open space
3.6.10 Future Pipe Connections

A temporary blow-off assembly will be required at the terminal end of any water main that is to be
extended in the future. Such discontinued mains shall be valved such that only a single valve will need
to be closed when the main is extended. Joints shall be restrained an adequate distance from the
valve to ensure that the valve will not blow off when the line is exposed for extension. No service
taps shall be allowed between the isolation valve and the dead end on any main that may be
extended in the future.
3.6.11 Pump Station/Tubewell Chambers

The location of pumping stations has an important bearing on the pressure maintained in the
distribution system. The following list of general provisions shall apply to the design of potable water
pump stations:
• Inaccessible installations shall be prohibited.

• Screened ventilation should be provided to prevent the entry of small animals and insects.
Ventilation systems should be disposable filters to prevent the entry of wind- borne dust.
• Flow rate, suction and discharge pressures, and pump motor status instrumentation will be

November, 2013 37
provided for all discharge lines.
• Instrumentation will be specified for establishing the operational control logic for the pump
station.
• Corrosion protection should be implemented to protect underground steel and iron.
• Water should be prevented from backing up into the pump station from other sources (e.g.,
check valve on drain line).
• Special care should be exercised in the selection of pumping units and associated components
to prevent pressure surges and insure the suitability, flexibility, and adaptability of the units to
the hydraulic conditions of the system.
• Horsepower rating of each pump motor should be such that the motor will continuously
carry the maximum load at any point on the pump curve without exceeding the motor
nameplate rating.
• Pumps should meet the net positive suction head requirements as published by the
manufacturer.
• Sufficient electrical outlets and wall lighting should be provided in the pump room.
• The pump room should be separated from the electrical/control room by a wall/door to
prevent water damage in the event of a pipe break.
• Slow-closing regulation valves and check valves, and other surge relief components, shall be
evaluated for use in the system to minimize and control water hammer.
• Ample clearances between equipment should be provided for operation and maintenance
activities.
Depending on the location of the pump station, the following should also be considered:
• Additional space for future expansion of pump(s), including VFDs, and piping.
• Bridge crane or access for a boom crane to remove and replace equipment.
• Throttling control with appropriate discharge valves and controls.
• Emergency/backup power supply for operation of the treatment works, tubewells and pump
stations according to the pumping regime/schedule should be made integral part of the
scheme/system.
• Isolation valves on each side of each pumping unit.
• Temperature sensors for remote alarming and lock-out relays to shut down the pump and
motor upon overheating.
• Reduced voltage motor starters should be provided for all pumps 25 horsepower or less. All
pumps larger than 25 horsepower should be equipped with variable frequency drives (VFDs).
• Dual transformers cross-connected with tie-breakers and separately switched for isolation.
• Remote control for all pumps, gas engines, and system filling valves with “start/stop/ position”
indications. A primitive SCADA/Automation System is recommended by the NDC for better
control and management and for effective service delivery.
Pumping units shall be submersible as preferred for tubewells. In case of water treatment, a
minimum of two pumping units should be provided to ensure pumping demand of the system
without overloading. The design pumping demand should be equal to the maximum day demand for
the pump service area. The pumping units should be capable of continuous operation at the
maximum head and air temperature possible for a specified, extended period of time, and shall
operate efficiently over the full range of flows.
The plan of tubewells installed with deep well turbine or submersible pumps along with its
components are at figure 1 and 2. It shows the minimum requirements of the mechanical
appurtenances, measuring equipment, electrical control and protection gadgets.

November, 2013 38
3.7 STORAGE TANK
3.7.1 Site of the Storage Tank

In the selection of the site for storage tanks, first priority should be given to natural elevated places.
If the elevated storage tank is to be constructed in a flat area, it may be built central to the
distribution system. This is to avoid long and consequently large- diameter service mains.
3.7.2 Structural Design

The structural design of reservoirs must meet the established engineering standards. The reservoirs
must be strong enough to withstand all loads, such as hydrostatic pressure, earth pressure, wind
loads, seismic loads and other dead or live loads. The tank should be covered to avoid pollution and
growth of algae.
Water storage tanks will be tree shape tanks and should have separate inlet, discharge and overflow
lines. The outlet line should include an automated valve for isolation purposes in the event of
contamination and manual or automated shutoff valves and check valves to satisfactorily service and
maintain the tank. Storage volume shall be based on 4-6 hours consumption and tank shall include a
maximum of 1m of dead storage.
3.8 TUBEWELLS
Electrical and mechanical equipment associated with bore well shall be located 5m above the 30-year
floodplain elevation or highest recorded flood elevation, whichever is highest, and shall remain fully
operational and accessible during such an event. Grading shall be provided to protect the site by
directing surface flows away from the facilities.
3.8.1 Total Dynamic Head

In order to accurately predict the performance of a pump in a specific application, the total head
losses must be considered. These losses include, but are not limited to:
• Total static head;

• Losses due to pipe size, length, and material;
• Losses due to pipe appurtenances.
Based on the observations by the PHED, Peshawar, we recommend a total dynamic head of 105 m.
3.8.2 Friction Losses in Conduits

When water moves through a closed conduit, the flow creates friction between the two surfaces
(water against conduit). A steel pipe will produce more friction than will any plastic pipe. Friction
increases with the increased length of pipe or hose, and also with a deceased diameter of pipe or
hose. Increased friction slows down the water, decreasing the discharge capacity and actual
discharge of a given pipe.
3.8.3 Suction Head

Atmospheric pressure at sea level limits the suction head of centrifugal pumps to 10.3 m (33.9 feet).
However, this head would only be obtained if a perfect vacuum could be created in the pump. In
reality, the suction head of centrifugal pumps is limited to about 7.9 m (26 feet). Pump performance
(capacity or pressure) is highest when the pump is operated close to the water surface. Increasing
the suction head will decrease the discharge head and consequently the discharge capacity of the
pump. Very importantly, suction head should be kept to the smallest value possible to reduce the
likelihood of cavitation. Cavitation can also occur if the suction pipe is restricted. A suction hose
with a smaller diameter than the suction port should not be used as cavitation can quickly damage a

November, 2013 39
pump. Cavitation means that cavities or bubbles form in the liquid being pumped which leads to loss
of pump efficiency.
3.9 WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Water treatment, also known as water purification, is the process of removing undesirable
chemicals, materials, and biological contaminants from raw water. The purpose of water treatment is
to ensure that the quality of the water to be supplied to the consumers is within acceptable
standards. Given the water quality, treatment of water is not anticipated. However, due to the
presence of microbial activity, it is necessary to provide chlorination facilities to take care for such
contamination as recommended above. NDC recommendations for filtration are given in Table 3.12
as per standard practice and can be varied as per source raw water quality.
Table 3-12
Water Filtration plant Specifications: Rapid Sand Filtration
Water Treatment Standard
Rate of filtration 9-18 liter/ft/min
Minimum Depth of filter Should not be less than 2.5 m
Depth of water on the sand Should not be less than 1 m
Depth of Filtering sand 610 mm to 762 mm
Effective size of filtering sand 0.35 – 0.50 mm
Uniformity co-efficient of sand 1.3 – 1.7
Supporting Gravel Range (mm) Depth (mm)

64 to 38 127 to 203
38 to 19 127 to 203
19 to 13 127 to 203
13 to 4.5 50 to 76
4.5 to 2.3 50 to 76
Total Depth (mm) 381 to 609
Total Depth (m) 0.4 to 0.6
3.10 LITERATURE CONSULTED
1. Asian Development Bank, 2006. Domestic Water and Sanitation Policy for Sindh, Capacity
Building for Environment Management in Sindh, Pakistan.
2. Water Supply and Sewerage by E.W. Steel and T. J. McGraw-Hill Book Company, London.
3. Water and Wastewater Engineering by G. M. Fair, J. C. Geyer and D. A. Okun: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York.
4. Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications by R. L. Daugherty: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York.
5. EPANET 2 User Manual by L. A. Rossman: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati,
OH 45268.
6. Technical and Service Delivery Standards for Water Supply and Sanitation Sectors,
Government of the Punjab.
7. Paper No 418, Design Standards For Water Supply Schemes In Pakistan by Mr. Iqbal Ahmad
Beg.

November, 2013 40
8. Paper No 393, Design Aspects of Muncipal Water Supply Pilot Projects by Syed Arshad Ali
9. Design Guidelines for Drinking Water Systems, Ministry of Environment, Ontario
10. Rural Water Supply Design Manual, Water Partnership program, The World Bank Office,
Manila.
11. Domestic Water Supply System Design, City of Roseville, Design Standards, January 2013.

November, 2013 41
Appendix 3-1
Urban Water Consumption in the Project Area (Year 2013)
Population No of Operating Total Total Per Capita Per Capita
UC
U.C Name Projection Tube Hrs./Day discharge/Da discharge/Day Consumption Consumption
No.
2013 wells y (M³) (Imp. Gallon) (GPD) (LPD)
1 Khalisa-1 26397 11 13 6221 1368433 52 235
2 Khalisa-II 37798 6 12 3276 720622 19 87
3 Mahal Terai-1 39118 12 13 7410 1629978 42 189
4 Mahal Terai-II 54313 16 13 9464 2081796 38 174
5 Hasan Ghari-I 35970 3 11 1353 297619 8 38
6 Hasan Ghari-II 31024 6 11 2706 595239 19 87
7 Shahi Bag 30202 13 14 8281 1821572 60 274
8 Faqir Abad 27213 13 13 7352 1617219 59 270
9 Skinder Town 32765 19 13 11239 2472243 75 343
10 Gulbhar 30776 11 13 5863 1289684 42 190
11 Shaheen Town-I 32068 10 13 5655 1243930 39 176
12 Shaheen Town-II 35774 6 12 2808 617676 17 78
13 Sheikh Junaid Abad 38007 13 12 6708 1475559 39 176
14 Lahori 30671 11 13 7488 1647135 54 244
15 Karimpura 27737 13 13 8112 1784397 64 292
16 AndarSher 28458 8 14 4816 1059376 37 169
17 Asia 42859 12 13 6786 1492716 35 158
18 Jehangirpura 31796 10 14 4592 1010102 32 144
19 Gunj 31097 14 14 7644 1681451 54 245
20 Yakka Toot -I 27825 10 13 5330 1172440 42 191
21 Yakka Toot -II 43654 12 13 7267 1598522 37 166
22 Yakka Toot -III 33456 16 13 8528 1875904 56 255
23 Wazir Bagh 41221 18 13 10062 2213338 54 244
24 Kakshal-I 31991 15 13 9464 2081796 65 295
25 Kakshal-II 31618 10 13 5590 1229632 39 177
26 Akhoon Abad 40109 12 13 7098 1561347 39 177
27 Hazar Khawani-I 34484 3 10 1035 227669 7 30
28 Hazar Khawani-II 42157 4 10 1725 379448 9 41

November, 2013 42
29 Deh Bahar 38508 9 12 4914 1080933 28 127
30 Bhana Mari 29353 14 13 8281 1821572 62 282
31 Nothia Qadeem 36426 11 12 6552 1441243 40 180
32 Dheri Bagban 28877 8 12 4368 960829 33 151
33 Landi Arbab 36668 13 13 8873 1951794 53 242
34 Nothia Jadeed 38770 18 12 9396 2066838 53 242
35 Pawaka 41303 16 12 8190 1801554 44 198
36 Universty Town 30924 22 13 13013 2862470 93 420
37 Shaheen Town 42854 26 12 16380 3603109 84 382
38 Tehkal Payan-I 30873 4 12 2088 459297 15 68
39 Tehkal Payan-II 26564 8 12 4176 918595 35 157
40 Tehkal Bala 43568 12 11 5742 1263068 29 132
41 Palosi 37493 8 13 4797 1055196 28 128
42 Malkander 34063 9 13 4797 1055196 31 141
43 Hayat Abad-I 24941 41 14 32718 7196978 289 1310
44 Hayat Abad-II 29546 31 14 24738 5441618 184 836
Cant
Cantt Area 114403 33 14 26334 5792690 51 230
t
Total Urban Pop (In

case 100% pop. 1,635,692 590 359,230 79,019,823 48 219
Coverage)
Rural Water Consumption in the Project Area (Year 2013)

Population No of Operating Total Total Per Capita Per Capita
UC Projection Tube discharge/Da discharge/Day Consumption Consumption
U.C Name Hrs./Day
No.
2013 wells y (M³) (Imp. Gallon) (GPD) (LPD)
48 Musa Zai 28824 7 4.5 690 151779 5 24
49 Bazid Khel 43974 6 4 828 182135 4 19
50 Sheik Muhammadi 46181 9 4 962 211611 5 21
Badaber
51 27364 9 3 819 180155 7 30
Maryamzai
56 Masho Gager 51140 3 3.5 546 120104 2 11
58 Sheikan 43896 10 3.3 837 184115 4 19
59 Sarnbanda 36769 9 3.25 421 92607 3 11
Pushtakahara
60 41897 10 4.25 332 73030 2 8
Payan

November, 2013 43
65 Chamkani 34912 4 0.5 72 15838 0 2
68 Musa Zai Payan 27869 4 5 273 60052 2 10
69 Wadpaga 32307 1 2 72 15838 0 2
70 Pakha Ghulam 33286 3 4 492 108225 3 15
76 Garhi Khazana 38923 5 5 1025 225469 6 26
79 Shahi Bala 34802 4 7 1274 280242 8 37
80 Reggi 42493 13 4 1118 245926 6 26
81 Sufaid Dheri 49376 22 8 8008 1761520 36 162
85 Pajjagi 38117 3 4 108 23757 1 3
87 Daag 38628 4 2.5 173 38055 1 4
88 Mathra 48195 6 4 410 90188 2 8
91 Achni Bala 46419 10 8 4368 960829 21 94
Total Rural Pop. (In

case 100% pop. 785,372 142 22,828 5,021,475 6 29
Coverage)

November, 2013 44
Appendix 3-2
Comparison of Discharges (Actual measurement of Tubewells as compared to rated Discharges)
As per Rated Discharge of Tubewells Actual Measurement Of Discharge on the Selected Tube Wells
Static
Rated Daily Discharge Total
Motor Daily TW No. UC Date of No of Town Agency Water Pumping Discharge Discharge Discharge Input Power Efficiency
Sr # Pump Type Discharge Operating Location of Tubewell UC Name Surveyed 0n Presuure Dynamic
H.P. Production (PMPP) NO. Installation years No Responsible Level Level(ft) (m3/hr) (gph) (gpm) (kw) (% )
(gph) Hours (PSI) Head (m)
(ft)
1 Submersible 25 8,000 10 80000 40 Shenwari Town 4 Mahal Terai 2 7/31/2013 2009 4 1 MCP 35.6 50 12 23.69 57.90 12761 212.68 15.6 24%
Sheikh Junaid
2 Submersible 20 14000 10 140000 132 Sheikh abad School 13 8/5/2013 1980 33 1 DC 84 88.9 3 29.21 55.10 12144 202.39 12.7 35%
Abad
3 Submersible 20 14,000 12 168000 225 Gulzar Colony 21 Yakka Toot 2 8/18/2013 2006 7 1 DC 88 103.4 12 39.96 45.90 10116 168.60 18.5 27%
4 Submersible 20 13,000 10 130000 301 Afrida Abad 1 27 Hazar Khawani 1 7/25/2013 2010 3 4 DC 99 108.2 14 42.83 38.80 8551 142.52 14.9 30%
5 Submersible 25 11,000 10 110000 305 Ghair Qamar Din 28 Hazar Khawani 2 6/26/2013 1992 21 4 DC 72.3 85.3 14 35.85 55.20 12166 202.76 20.4 26%
6 Submersible 20 10,500 10 105000 310 Javed Abad 29 Deh Bahader 6/19/2013 1988 25 3 DC 80 83 5 28.82 100.30 22106 368.43 20 39%
7 Submersible 40 14,000 10 140000 398 36 University Town 6/10/2013 1992 21 3 DC 90.9 93.1 24 45.27 96.50 20524 342.06 23.1 51%
8 Submersible 30 12,000 10 120000 417 Old Bilal Lain 36 University Town 6/12/2013 2006 7 3 DC 88 91 14 37.59 100.20 22084 368.05 27.2 38%
9 Submersible 40 14,500 9 130500 423 Canal Town Street 37 Shaheen Town 5/30/2013 1983 30 3 DC 85.3 87.6 34 50.64 78.10 17213 268.88 21.4 50%
10 Submersible 25 14,000 8 112000 453 Jhangir Abad Tenki 39 Tehkal Payan 2 5/31/2013 2011 2 3 DC 11 16 6 9.1 70.00 15428 257.12 14.1 12%
11 Submersible 30 12,000 10 120000 472 Shahid Abad 41 Palosi 6/6/2013 2003 10 3 DC 37 45 25 31.32 74.10 16331 272.19 21.1 30%
12 Submersible 40 14,000 8 112000 482 Palosi Maghdarzai 42 Malkandher 6/6/2013 2005 8 3 DC 106 107 0 32.61 90.00 19836 330.59 23.2 35%
13 Submersible 60 17,500 10 175000 538 Malkandair-1 44 Hayatabad 5/23/2013 2001 12 0 MCP 213 220.3 9 73.48 107.10 23604 393.40 39.9 54%
14 Submersible 15 11,000 4 44000 564 Sector E-1 Phase 1 48 Mussa Zai 9/13/2013 1983 31 4 PHED 24.6 61.8 4 21.65 58.00 12783 213.05 14.1 24%
15 Submersible 25 14,000 1 14000 570 WSS Pando Payan-2 49 Bazid khel 7/28/2013 2012 1 3 DC 0 10 22 18.54 41.80 9213 153.24 15.2 14%
16 Submersible 25 14,000 4 56000 690 Bazid Khel-4 91 Achini Bala 7/29/2013 1980 33 3 DC 218 226 10 75.92 35.60 7846 130.77 20.4 36%
17 Turbine 40 16,000 12 192000 712 Achnai Mera Bala-2 Cantt Cantt 7/26/2013 1976 37 0 Cantt 21.6 28.4 36 34 136.40 30062 501.03 22.5 56%
18 Submersible 30 15,500 10 155000 726 DOC Shami Road TWCantt Cantt 7/27/2013 1982 31 0 Cantt 94 97 12 38.01 107.70 23737 395.61 23.9 47%
19 Submersible 30 12,000 10 120000 404 Chotti Lal Kurti TW N 36 University Town 6/11/2013 59 81.6 82.6 0 25.18 74.60 16441 274.02 16.7 31%
20 Turbine 30 15,500 10 155000 21 Ladies Club No.1 3 Afghan colony 8/21/2013 46 60 3 20.4 47.50 10469 174.47 17.3 15%
266,500 G/Hr 323412 G/Hr

A 3
B 3
1212 M /Hr %age increase 121 1470 M /Hr

November, 2013 45
Appendix 3-3
Per Capita Water Consumptions w.r.t 100 %, 90 % and 80 % Coverage
Production as Per Full Coverage (100 %) 90 % Coverage 80 % Coverage

80% Pop. 90% Pop. Production as Per Actual Discharge
Pop.
Coverage Coverage Rated Discharge
Nature (Projected GPCD LPCD GPCD LPCD GPCD LPCD GPCD LPCD GPCD LPCD GPCD LPCD
Co-related Exercise
2013)
MGD M3/Day MGD M3/Day MGD M3/Day MGD M3/Day Rated Actual Rated Actual Rated Actual
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
Urban 1,635,694 1,308,555 68,852 1,472,124 77,458 79,019,823 4,157,769 95,613,990 5,030,901 48 219 58 265 54 244 65 295 60 274 73 332
Rural 810,789 648,631 34,129 729,710 38,395 5,021,475 264,214 6,075,984 319,699 6 28 7 34 7 31 8 38 8 35 9 43
Total 2,446,483 1,957,186 102,981 2,201,834 115,853 84,041,298 4,421,983 101,689,974 5,350,599 34 156 42 189 38 173 46 210 43 195 52 236

November, 2013 46
Figure 3-1 Tubewell Layout with Installed Turbine Pump

November, 2013 47
Figure 3-2 Tubewell Layout with Installed Submersible

November, 2013 48
4.0 SANITATION/STORMWATER SYSTEM
This section presents planning level engineering design criteria for improving the sanitation and
stormwater system serving the study area. This information will be used for the development of the
Master Plan to estimate future flow conveyance and treatment needs and determine infrastructure
requirements to meet these needs.
4.1 GOVERNING POLICES & GUIDELINES
4.1.1 Planning Policy
National sanitation policy was formulated by the Ministry of Environment, Government of Pakistan in
2006. The primary focus of sanitation policy is on the safe disposal of excreta away from the dwelling
units and work places by using a sanitary latrine and includes creation of an open defecation free
environment along with the safe disposal of liquid and solid wastes; and the promotion of health and
hygiene practices in the country.
The Policy resolves to meet the Millennium Development Goals ( MDGs) and targets whereby the
proportion of people without sustainable access to improved sanitation will be reduced by half, by
the year 2015 and 100 per cent population will be served by 2025 with improved sanitation.
The national sanitation policy of 2006 shall be followed for proper drainage of sewage and storm
water to create a defecation free healthy environment to the inhabitants of Peshawar. The key
principles of this policy are:
i. To promote health and hygiene, a fundamental human right which cannot be achieved without
proper and safe sanitation?
ii. To achieve sustainable development by:-
- building on what exists, mobilize local resources and avoid foreign loans and developing
programs that can be implemented within available resources with enhanced capacities
of institutions and communities;
- understand, accept and support the role that communities, NGOs and the formal and
informal sectors are playing in sanitation provisions/coverage;
- develop and use appropriate, low cost, easy and cost effective technologies; which are
viable, affordable and locally appropriate based on indigenous knowledge and local skills.
- accept the component sharing and total sanitation models for all government programs and
projects so as to ensure financial sustainability and community and private sector
involvement in development and subsequent O&M;
- involve responsible departments and communities for O&M in the planning of sanitation
schemes; initiate research and pilot projects for developing sustainable models focusing
on safe disposal of liquid, and solid waste.
iii. The provision and distribution of sanitation facilities and resources should be equitable between the
rich and poor sections of human settlements. Preference shall, however, be given to those areas
where the environmental and social impact shall be the maximum.
iv. Technical designs will be area specific and compatible to culture and traditions of the communities.
v. O&M costs will be generated at the local level through a combination of affordable user charges.
vi. Sanitation programs and projects will be coordinated with city planning, housing, environment,
health, education, socio economic policy guidelines, programs and projects. Solid and liquid
waste will be disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.

November, 2013 49
4.2 TYPES OF SERVICES
The main conveyance system usually comprises of open/covered drains for combined domestic and
storm flows or sewer system for domestic wastewater flows and drain for the storm water flows.
For the study area, a separate sewerage system for domestic wastewater flows is recommended
whereas the existing open/covered drains with improvements will serve for storm water flows.
4.2.1 Household Connections
For both options of the drainage network i.e. separate sewerage system and combined drainage
system with open/covered drains, household connection shall be preferably routed through septic
tanks for combined drainage system. In case of congested areas where streets are narrow, a street
side chamber (Haudi) can be constructed for connecting household with the drainage system. In a
separate sewerage system household connections can directly run into manholes.
4.2.2 Septic Tanks
Septic tank shall be constructed to connect household with the drainage system especially when the
system comprises of combined drainage system of open/covered drains.
4.2.3 Latrines
Public latrines shall be constructed in public places like parks, bus stands and shopping malls etc. and
should be connected to the sewer system.
4.3 DESIGN FLOWS
4.3.1 Wastewater Design Flow
Domestic
Domestic wastewater flow will be calculated on the basis of per capita water consumption, which in
our case is as:
For urban areas 246 lpcd

For rural areas 136 lpcd
In general 80-90% of water consumption is taken as contribution to wastewater flow. For this
project 80% of water consumption is recommended for contribution to waste water.
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Flow
While most sewage in Peshawar is generated from residences, substantial volumes may come from large
industries or commercial areas. WASA Lahore in general adopts an industrial allowance of 45,000 liters per
hector per day the same is recommended for the study area, when designing the sewers. In addition, special
allowances may have to be made on an individual basis for very large industrial sources of wastewater.
Commercial and institutional wastewater will be taken on the same basis as adopted for water consumption.
Infiltration & Inflow

PHED Punjab recommends as the following
Sewerage above sub-soil water level = 11850 lpd/300mm dia/Km.

Sewers below sub-soil water level. = 23700 lpd/300mm dia/Km.
WASA and Development Authorities of Lahore and Faisalabad have recommended the following
rates for infiltration.

November, 2013 50
• 5% of average dry weather daily flow for sewers up to 600 mm diameter.
• 10% of average dry weather daily flow for sewers of diameter greater than 600.
NDC recommends 5% of average dry weather daily flow for sewers upto 600 mm dia and 10% in
case of sewer of dia above 600 mm for the study area.
Peaking Factors
Peak factors will be determined by the formula:
PF = 5/(( P/1000)^0.167)
Where ‘P’ is the population. PHED of Punjab have used the same formula for calculating the peak
factor. Details of PHED criteria are given in Table 4-1. NDC recommends the same for Peshawar.
Table 4-1
Peaking Factors
Population (in thousands) Peak Factor
Up to 5 4.50
6to 10 4.00
11 to 25 3.50
26 to 50 3.0
51 to 80 2.50
81 to 200 2.00
above 200 2.00
Projected Wastewater Flows

Wastewater flow generated from a service area of a sewer line will be calculated as under:
i. Projected population(2032) of the service area =P

ii. Domestic wastewater (average dry weather waste water flow ADWF) =
0.80*246 1/(1000*24*3600)*P m3/sec. for urban area and similarly for rural areas with 136
lpcd.
iii. Peak dry weather wastewater flow (PDWF) =ADWF*P.F
iv. Infiltration allowance as per sub-section- 5-10 % of ADWF.
v. Storm water allowance 33-50 % of PDWF in case of partially combined or separate sewerage
system. When the system is to be designed combined the storm water flow, will be calculated
separately on the basis of rainfall intensity and return period.
vi. Commercial and institutional flow 80% of water consumed, if these are included in area.
vii. Industrial flow @ 45 m3/day/ha of the service area. For major industrial units, provision shall
be made on actual discharge from the industrial unit with the permission of the competent
authority.
viii. Unaccounted for sewage flow 10% of ADWF shall be made for flow from private sources of
the inhabitants.
ix. Total design discharge will be sum of iii to viii.
1
Water consumption in liters / capita / day

November, 2013 51
4.3.2 Storm Water Design Flow
In the absence of hourly rainfall data for the study area, 35 years (1970-2005) of daily rainfall data
was used to perform rainfall-runoff and frequency analysis. Based on these analyses, average daily
rainfall was found to be 56.6mm for the study area. These analyses were also used to calculate
discharges at major outfall points and the results are presented in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2
Estimated Discharges of Main Drains at Outfall Points
Concentratio
Intensity (I)
(Q) (m3/s)
Discharge
(Minutes)
Area (A)
(mm/hr)
Time of
Rainfall
Length
n (Tc)
(Km2)
Peak
(m)
Name of Drain Slope
Shahi Kattha at Budhani

17.03 11713 0.00625 187 11.5 32.67
Nullah
Dalzak Road Drain at Shah

12.220 11686 0.00219 281 10 19.61
Alam River
Nala Mumand Zai at Dalzak

3.030 3136 0.002 97 21 10.61
Road Drain
Kohat Road Drain at Hazar

1.200 2707 0.0052 65 25 5.00
Khani Canal
Ring Road Drain at Bara

6.47 8106 0.0047 157 13 14.03
River
GT Road Drain at Bara River 1.56 3090 0.00472 74 23 5.98
Golf Club Drain at Budhani

3.020 2540 0.010 48 28 14.10
Nullah
Airport /Tehkal Payan-1

7.956 6000 0.0092 96 20 26.54
Drain at Joe Sheikh Canal
University Road Tehkal Bala

7.92 7699 0.0066 143 15 19.82
Drain at Joe Sheikh Canal
Hayatabad Drain at Narai

2.540 1948 0.01 39 30 12.71
Khawar
This data was further used to develop frequency curves based on statistical distributions such as
Gumble Extreme Value Type-1 and Normal Distribution and Plotting Position formula. Based on the
frequency analysis of daily rainfall data, the average daily rainfall for a two year return period was
found to be 57 mm. This value was used for discharge calculations. Once the frequency has been
established, the storm parameters i.e. storm duration, point depth, areal depth adjustment, storm
intensity and time distribution can be determined. Storm duration was calculated using hourly
pattern data from Mardan and Risalpur meteorological stations.

November, 2013 52
Intensity of Designed Rainfall
For urban storm drainage, the design discharge is based upon storm duration equal to the time of
concentration (tc) of the catchment. Therefore, tc has been evaluated for storm duration using
Kirpich equation. Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) analysis has been done based on point rainfall
of Peshawar station. IDF curve is shown in Figure 4-1.
IDF curve is used in the Rational Method for urban storm drainage design. In applying the Rational
Method, rainfall intensity is used which represents the average intensity of a storm of given
frequency for a selected duration equal to time of concentration. Design frequency of 2 years has
been adopted for urban storm drainage design. The design intensity of rainfall (I=tc) can be found
from the intensity-duration-frequency curve for the given catchment corresponding to tc and T for
the evaluation of designed discharges using Rational Method.
Figure 4-1 Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curve for the Study Area
4.3.3 Runoff
Rational Method is mostly used for urban drainage design is adopted for storm runoff analysis. Brief
description of the method is given in the following paragraphs.
Qp = 0.278 * CIA
WhereQp = the peak runoff rate (m3/sec)
C 2 = the runoff coefficient
I = the average rainfall intensity (mm/hr), for a critical period of time, tc
tc = the time of concentration (minutes), and
A = area (km2)
Runoff coefficient ‘C’ has been determined from literature based on land use information of the
study area. Runoff coefficient values are given in Table 4-3.
2 Introduction to Hydrology by Viessman, Knapp, Lewis and Haebaugh, 2nd Edition, Chapter 11, Page 508.

November, 2013 53
Table 4-3
Typical Runoff Coefficient (C) Values for Various Areas
Sr. No. Description of Area Runoff Coefficients
1 Business
Downtown areas 0.75-0.95
Neighborhood 0.50-0.70
2 Residential
Single-family areas 0.30-0.50
Multi-units, detached 0.40-0.60
Multi-units, attached 0.60-0.75
3 Residential (sub-urban) 0.25-0.40
4 Apartment dwelling areas 0.50-0.70
5 Industrial
Light areas 0.50-0.80
Heavy areas 0.60-0.90
6 Parks, cemeteries 0.10-0.25
7 Playgrounds 0.20-0.35
8 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40
9 Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30
10 Streets
Asphaltic 0.70-0.95
Concrete 0.80-0.95
Brick 0.70-0.85
11 Drives and walks 0.75-0.85
12 Roofs 0.75-0.95
13 Lawns; Sandy soil:
Flat, 2% 0.05-0.10
Average, 2-7% 0.10-0.15
Steep, 7% 0.15-0.20
14 Lawns; Heavy Soil:
Flat, 2% 0.13-0.17
Average, 2-7% 0.18-0.22
Steep, 7% 0.25-0.35
Runoff Coefficient values will be selected from Table 4-2 depending upon the actual field conditions.
Time of concentration, tc can be determined by using Kirpich equation (for the watershed areas
larger than 6 hectares (0.06 km2) as given below.
tc = 0.0195 [ L/ (S)0.5]0.77
Wheretc = Time of concentration (minutes)

L = the channel length from most distant point to the catchment outlet (meters).
S = the slope between the two points
4.4 HYDRAULIC DESIGN CRITERIA
Wastewater systems will be designed to provide a minimum velocity of 0.76 m/s. Invert elevations at
manholes should be designed in such a manner that the energy gradient is consistently falling in the
direction of the flow.
Sanitary sewers and stormwater pipes should be sized to convey the Peak Design Flow while flowing
no more than 75 percent of the full pipe flow capacity. Coefficient of roughness "n" in the Manning
formula should be taken as 0.013 for RCC pipes and 0.011 for PVC pipes.

November, 2013 54
At all junctions where a smaller diameter main discharges into a larger one, the invert of the larger
sanitary sewer shall be lowered so that the energy gradients of the sewers at the junction are at the
same level. Generally, this The maximum velocity shall not exceed 2.13m/s. Drop manholes should
be provided to break steep slopes to limit the velocities in conformance with this criterion. Where
drop manholes are impractical for velocity reduction, the sewer must be approved by variance and
should be of PVC or other abrasion resistant material.
Where actual flow will be much below normal for several years, the minimum velocity should be
achieved by suitable grades at the partial condition will be met by placing the 0.75 depth of flow in
each sewer at the same elevation. No surcharging of pipelines should be allowed.
4.5 WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEM LAYOUT CRITERIA
4.5.1 Location
In general, sanitary/stormwater mains shall be located in public streets. Main sewer lines shall be
located along/or in main roads preferably on one side of the road. Mains and manholes shall not be
located in vehicle wheel paths. Under no circumstances shall a water main be closer than 1.0m from
a gutter pan. In wider streets it is economical to lay dual line on each side of the street rather than
to cross the street on many locations for connection of secondary/ tertiary sewer lines. Pumping /lift
station can be proposed where gravity sewers attain depth of cutting up to 8-10m. Sanitary sewer
lines and manholes shall not be located within detention pond areas.
4.5.2 Horizontal Layout
All sewers shall be laid with uniform slope between manholes. Sewers of 600mm diameter or
smaller shall be laid with a straight horizontal alignment between manholes; for sewers of 750mm
size or larger, it is acceptable to include smooth horizontal curves between manholes, if desirable.
Sanitary sewer and stormwater mains shall be laid with a minimum separation of 1.0m horizontally,
edge-to-edge, from all water lines. Mains shall have the same minimum separation horizontally,
centerline-to-centerline, from all other existing or proposed utilities wherever possible.
4.5.3 Vertical Layout
Sewers shall be laid as per designed longitudinal cross-section in which gradient of each sewer line is
fixed keeping in view the system in sewerage district/zone. Minimum cover over a sewer line shall be
0.75m above crown of pipe; however in difficult situation it can be reduced by providing extra
strength material to safeguard the sewer against external load affect/impact. Incoming and outgoing
sewers in manhole shall have their inner top in line, giving drop equal to difference of diameter of
both sewers.
4.5.4 Easements
Please see the relevant information as given in section 3
4.6 DESIGN CRITERIA
4.6.1 Open Channel Storm Drains
Open/covered drains can be designed to convey the design flow on the basis of:
• Available slope
• Assuming a cross sectional shape of channel keeping in views the ease of construction and
maintenance. Rectangular, rectangular with cunnete and trapezoidal cross sections are most
commonly used.

November, 2013 55
• Deciding material of construction Earthen or pacca with Brick or stone masonry, PCC or
RCC to select roughness coefficient.
• Calculating cross sectional area of flow assuming Width and depth in the ratio 2:1
• Calculating hydraulic radius as R=A/P
• Calculating velocity of flow by using Manning’s formula:
v = kn *1 / n * R2/3 * S1/2
Where
v = cross-sectional average velocity (m/s)

kn = Constant 1.0 for SI units
A = cross sectional area of flow (m2)
n3 = Mannings’ coefficient of roughness (Select from the table 4-4)
R = hydraulic radius (m) = A/P
Where A = cross sectional area of flow (m2)

P = wetted perimeter (m)
S = slope
Table 4-4
Value of “n” for Different Type of Material of Construction
Manning’s “n” Material
0.010 Glazed pipes, very smooth pipes, neat cement surface
0.011 Cement plaster, iron and other smooth pipes in good order
0.012 Ordinary iron pipes, new concrete sewers overs 1500mm dia
0.013 Cast iron pipes asphalted or coated with usual bends and valves etc. New brick
sewers of all sizes, new concrete sewers of 600 to 1500mm dia
0.015 Cast iron, rough brick work, good tone work, new sewers under 600mm,ordinary
concrete, existing sewers in average condition
0.017 Existing sewers in poor condition
Open channels
0.015 channel with brick sides and concrete bottom
0.017 Brick lined channels
0.020 Rubble masonry; coarse brickwork; earth in good order; very fine gravel; rough
concrete; smooth rubble
0.025 Canals and rivers in earth in tolerably good order, free from stones and weeds
0.030 Canals and rivers in bad order, occasional stones and weeds
0.035 Canals and rivers obstructed by detritus and weeds,(very rough surface)
3
Open channel hydraulics by V.T.Chow, ii- Design of small dams US bureau of interior reclamation

November, 2013 56
Table 4-4
Value of “n” for Different Type of Material of Construction
Manning’s “n” Material
0.040 Ditto, rough rubble with rough bottoms and much vegetation
0.050 Torrential rivers with beds covered with detritus and boulders
0.060 Very rough very grass
• Velocity shall be in the range 0.6-2.13 m/s for different nature of the construction material. If
velocity exceeds the maximum limit drop or fall structure can be constructed.
• Calculating flow carrying capacity ( Q) of the assumed cross section as:
Q= A*V ( m3/sec.)
• Compare the designed flow with the flow carrying capacity to finalize the cross section or to
revise the calculation to satisfy flow equalization condition.
• Providing sufficient free board to avoid frequent overflow due to minor flow variations/
blockages. Free board will be proposed as per Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
Free board in open channels
Discharge Free-board 4
Less than 0.3 m3/sec 30 cm
0.3 to 1 m3/sec 40cm
up to 3 m3/sec 45cm
up to 5 m3/sec 50cm
6 to 10 m3/sec 60cm
11 to 30 m3/sec 75cm
4.6.2 Gravity Pipeline-Material, Sizes and Grades
Sewage will be collected by conveyance system comprising of unground sewer lines whereas storm
water will be conveyed through open drain. Key points for sewer lines design will be as under:
• Civil works for sewerage system will be designed for 20 Years and mechanical works for 10
years as per standard practice of PHED and WASAs in Punjab.
• Sewer will be designed running full in case of combined or partial sewerage system and in case
of completely separate system, air space allowance will be provided as per the following:
Sewer Size (mm) Ratio Qd / Qf Qd to obtain Qf
4
Open channel hydraulics by V.T.Chow, ii- Open channel hydraulics by Mc Graw Hill

November, 2013 57
300 to 375 0.70 1.43
450to 1200 0.75 1.33
1350 or larger 0.80 1.25
Where Qd is designed discharge and Qf is discharge of sewer when running full.
Velocity ranges at design flow
Minimum (in difficult situations) 0.61 m/s

Desirable minimum 0.76 m/s
Maximum in hilly area 2.13 m/s
Minimum size of RCC sewer shall be 300mm nominal diameter. Minimum cover should be 0.75 m
over crown of the sewer. Bedding of sewers (ASTM standards) as adopted by WASA and PHED
Punjab is recommended for the study area (Table 4-6).
Table 4-6
Type of bedding material
Condition Type of bedding
a Above sub-soil water level for Sewers 300 mm- dia. Sand
For sewers 375mm diameter and above Crush stone (6.25–25mm/size)
b For sewers below sub-soil water and for slushy soil Decide as per site conditions for
concrete cradle.
Bedding under sewer shall be Do/4 where Do is outer diameter of sewer, but not less than 100mm.
Height of bedding material shall extend up to half outer diameter of sewer.
Gravitational flow is always intended to minimize operation and maintenance cost. Gravity pipelines
can be designed by adopting the gradients as shown in the table below. These gradients are
calculated by Manning’s formula (Table 4-7)
Table 4-7
Gradient of Sewers
Diameter Slope to Attain Velocity in m/s
Sr. #
(mm) 0.60 0.76 0.90
1 300 0.0026 0.0042 0.0059
2 375 0.0019 0.0031 0.0043
3 450 0.0015 0.0024 0.0034
4 525 0.0012 0.0020 0.0028
5 600 0.0008 0.0012 0.0017
6 750 0.0006 0.0009 0.0013
7 900 0.0004 0.0007 0.0010
8 1050 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008

November, 2013 58
Table 4-7
Gradient of Sewers
Diameter Slope to Attain Velocity in m/s
Sr. #
(mm) 0.60 0.76 0.90
9 1450 0.0002 0.0004 0.0005
10 1600 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004
11 1800 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003
Reinforced cement concrete (RCC) sewers manufactured as per ASTM (C76-13a) standards are
most commonly and widely used by different agencies in construction of sewerage system. PHED &
WASAs in Punjab also recommends these sewers with minor modification in steel, which can also be
adopted for this project.
4.6.3 Lift Stations
The need for pumping sewage arises frequently where:
• Basements are too low to discharge sewage produced into a common sewer.
• Topography is such that, to get good grades the sewers are too far underground
• It is necessary to convey sewage over a ridge
• Sewer outlets are below the receiving body
• It is necessary to raise the sewage to get head for gravity flow
Lift stations will be discouraged and should only be allowed in those locations where there is no
other way for the area to be served by gravity extension to the collection/conveyance system. If it is
determined that a lift station is required, the collection system to the lift station must combine as
many basins as possible to increase the flows being lifted and to pre-empt the need for future lift
stations within the same service area.
Structure and Operation
• Lift station structures and the associated electrical and mechanical equipment shall be
protected from physical damage by the 100-year flood, and shall remain fully operational and
accessible during such an event. Lift stations shall be readily accessible by maintenance vehicles
during all weather conditions. The facility should be located off the traffic way of streets and
alleys.
• Lift stations will consist of a screening chamber, wet well, a dry well and a pump house built
over the dry well. The wet well collects all the flows from the area. The dry well is placed
with all the pumps, motors and switches.
• A number of pumps can be fitted into a pumping station depending on its intended discharge
capacity. The provision of breakdowns of pumps also needs to be allowed for so that if one
pump breaks down the others can still fulfil the requirements of the area.
• Automatic starting and stopping is accomplished by action of a float attached to a chain and
weight which is in turn attached to the switch.
• Gate Valves are needed on both suction and discharge pipes, to allow for cleaning and repair
operations to be conducted.
• The outlet of the discharge pipe is generally into an ordinary manhole or a force main that
connects it with a common sewer.

November, 2013 59
• Where it is necessary to pump flows prior to grit removal, the design of the wet well and lift
station piping should receive special consideration to avoid operational problems from the
accumulation of grit. If grit accumulation is anticipated as a result of initial low flow conditions,
consideration should be given to temporary concrete fill in the wet well areas subject to grit
deposition, temporary baffle walls or a grit removal system.
• Adequate ventilation at lift stations should be provided to mechanically ventilate the dry well,
and if screens or mechanical equipment requiring maintenance or inspection are located in the
wet well, it shall also be mechanically ventilated. There shall be no inter-connection between
the wet well and dry well ventilating systems.
• Unacceptable levels of odors may be produced at lift stations and within force mains due to
excessive hydrogen sulphide generation. At a minimum, every lift station will be designed to
accommodate the necessary storage tanks and automatic chemical feed equipment required
for odor control and treatment.
Design Considerations
• Flow determination
• Size of the Force Main
• System head analysis
The size of the wet well should be in accordance with the anticipated sewage quantity expected
from the area and its retention in the well. Following retention times are adopted by PHEDs and
WASAs in Punjab and are recommended for the study area.
Table 4-8
Retention Time for Different Populations
Population Retention time
i) Population up to 25,000 10 minutes
ii) 25,000 to 50,000 5 minutes
iii) 50,000 to 100,000 5 minutes
iv) 1 lac. to 500,000 2 minutes
v) Above 5 lac. 2,5,000 2 minutes
At a minimum, the following design criteria will be applicable to lift stations:
1. Backup electrical power should be provided by a generator with an automatic transfer switch
to insure that all lift station components function properly for a period of at least one week in
the event that the primary power is lost. A corrosion protection system shall be applied to,
and shall completely cover all interior surfaces of wet wells, and any in-line vaults or manholes
that precede the wet well.
2. Installation of suitable devices for measuring, recording and totalizing flow influent and effluent
flow and power consumption shall be included.
3. The lift station design shall consider changes in flows over the life of the station and allow for
proper operation of the station and force main throughout the intended design life.
4. Where high groundwater conditions are anticipated, buoyancy of the lift station structures
shall be evaluated and protected against.

November, 2013 60
5. Construction materials shall be selected that are appropriate for long-term exposure to
hydrogen sulphide and corrosive gases, greases, oils, and other constituents frequently present
in wastewater. This is particularly important in the selection of metals and paints.
6. Submersible pumps in wet wells will be considered on a case-by-case basis with the following
characteristics:
a. Pumps will be explosion proof, and should be able to pump the projected PDF for all
existing and proposed flows to be conveyed to the site.
b. Primary and secondary (backup) level control equipment for the operation of the
pumps shall be provided. Primary level control will be by a bubbler system with an
Ultrasonic system as a secondary backup.
c. The lift station will be provided with multiple pump units programmed to alternate
sequentially. Should only two units be provided, equal capacity is required, and each
pump train shall be capable of handling the PDF. A third identical pump and motor
should be provided on a pallet for replacement in case of the failure of an installed
pump and motor. Where three or more pumps are provided, they will be individually
sized to meet the PDF with any one pump out of service, and as appropriate for actual
flow conditions under normal operations.
d. The station will be designed such that the number of motor starts per hour shall not
exceed 10, or number of starts recommended by the motor manufacturer, whichever is
less. Duplex pump operation and controllers will be provided such that the lead and lag
pump positions are alternated with each successive motor start.
e. Provisions will be made to facilitate the removal of pumps, motors, and other
mechanical and electrical equipment. Typically, in wet well / dry well stations, a bridge
crane will be provided for removing pumps. In suction lift stations, slide or overhead
rails with hoists for removing pumps will be provided.
4.6.4 Force Mains
A force main is a pressurized main pipe that can carry sewage from pumping station to outfall point.
Mostly mild steel pipe or fiber glass reinforced pipes are used. Fiber glass reinforced pipes being
mostly used by PHEDs are recommended for this project.
Force mains shall be a minimum of 150mm in diameter. At the design- pumping rate (initial and
ultimate), the velocity shall be at least 1.0 m/s, but not more than 3.0 m/s. The force main, joint
restraint, thrust blocking, and station piping should be analyzed and designed to withstand water
hammer pressures and associated cyclic reversal of stresses that are expected with the cycling of
wastewater lift station pumps. Water hammer will be evaluated for the normal operation of the lift
station, as well as for a power outage while the pumps are running. The modulus of elasticity of the
pipe material should be considered when evaluating water hammer effects and cyclical loadings. At a
minimum, the following should be addressed in the analysis:
1. Transient pressures due to water hammer and effect of these pressures on the entire system.
2. Cyclical loading of the force main.
3. Evaluation of the pipeline profile to determine the possibility of column separation.
4. Reverse rotation characteristics of the pumps.
5. Shut-off characteristics of all proposed control valves, including check valves.
6. Substantiation for the use of surge control valves and other surge protection devices, when
necessary, listing recommended size and computed discharge pressures.
All elements of the piping system will be designed to withstand the maximum water hammer in
addition to the static head and cyclical loading. A safety factor of 1.5 will be used when determining
the adequacy of all piping system components with regard to withstanding system pressures.

November, 2013 61
Sanitary/Stormwater force main separation distances and clearances to other utilities shall conform
to those established for gravity sanitary sewers.
Suitable shutoff and check valves will be placed on the discharge line of each pump. Shutoff valves will
be full flow, gear-operated plug valves, with indicator and hand wheel. The check valve should be
located between the shutoff valve and the pump and will prevent reverse flow (or siphoning) from
the force main back into the lift station wet well. Check valves should be suitable for the material
being handled and should be placed on the horizontal portion of discharge piping except for ball
checks, which may be placed in the vertical run. Valves should be capable of withstanding operational
design pressures and water hammer.
All shutoff and check valves shall be operable from the floor level and accessible for maintenance.
Outside levers are required on swing check valves.
Combination air release and air/vacuum valves will be located at force main high points, on pump
discharge piping as close as possible to the check valve, and between isolation valves. The economics
of air valve installation against the installation of deeper force main piping should be evaluated during
design. The evaluation should take into account the installation and long-term maintenance costs of
the air valves. A manually controlled isolation valve suitable for wastewater service should be
installed between the force main and air valve.
Force mains will transition into the gravity sewer system at a dedicated manhole. The connection of
the force main to the manhole will be made by connecting the force main to a short section of
gravity main stubbed out from the manhole. The gravity stub will be a size that is equal to or larger
diameter pipe than the force main, and will be installed at an elevation that will prevent wastewater
from discharging back into the force main when the gravity system is flowing full. The manhole
interior should be coated for protection against hydrogen sulfide corrosion. The manhole and its
opening will be oversized to permit retrieval of cleaning pigs and ancillary equipment. The manhole
at the discharge point should not be an in-line gravity manhole.
Minimum identification requirements for force mains will consist of tracer wire and warning tape as
required for potable water mains. The warning tape shall be labeled, “Wastewater Force Main”.
4.6.5 Manholes
Manhole should invariably be provided at every change of alignment, change in size of sewer, at
junctions, at points of industrial and commercial discharge to facilitate observation and sampling, at
the upstream terminus of the main.
Manholes should be aligned and spaced as follows:
• Mains will be installed in a straight alignment, both in line and grade, and not curved between
manholes.
• Maximum change in alignment should not exceed 90 degrees.
Following manhole spacing is recommended for the study area (Table 4-9).
Table 4-9
Manhole Spacing Different Diameter of Sewers
Diameter of sewer (mm) Spacing (m)
225 – 300 30.5 – 46
375 – 600 61– 76
675 – 1050 91.5
1050 – 1500 122
Above 1500 152.5

November, 2013 62
Manholes will not be located in areas that are subject to flooding from surface runoff. If the
possibility of surface runoff flooding cannot be avoided, a watertight lid should be installed to
prevent inflow. Manholes should be located in areas that allow direct access by maintenance vehicles
when it is not feasible to locate the manhole in a public street.
Diameter of manholes for different pipe diameter and depth of sewer recommended for the study
area is given in Table 4-10. This criterion is largely used in Pakistan as a standard practice by different
PHEDs and other local government organizations.
Table 4-10
Dia of Manhole with Different Diameter and Depth of Sewer
Dia. of sewer (mm) Depth (m) Manhole Remarks
225 – 300 Up to 1.22 0.61mx0.61m Masonry in 1 :3

(Square)
Cement sand mortar.
225-525 1.22 – 2.13 1.22m dia.
(circular) Up to 2.44 m depth
225mm Masonry from
600 – 750 2.44– 6.1 1.52m dia.
2.44 m to 4.57 m depth.
825 – 1050 2.44 – 6.1 1.98m dia.
343mm to 225mm
1125 – 1350 2.44 – 6.1 2.286m dia.
Masonry. From
1500 2.44 – 6.1 2 .4 4 m dia.
4.57m to 6.1m
1650 2.44– 6.1 2.44 m dia.
Depth, 450 mm to
1800 2.44– 6.1 2.74 m dia. 225mm Masonry
• Where-ever drop is more than 0.91m, drop manhole should be constructed.

• For manholes under sub-soil water, core-wall and floor will be designed as per actual
depth of water.
• For depths more than 3.04m RCC slab will be put at 2.13 m from invert and then
1.22 m dia. masonry will be constructed up to surface.
4.6.6 Future Connections
Manholes will have pipes stubbed out that are sized to accommodate flows from the upstream basin
whenever a future extension of the system is anticipated. The main line stub-out shall extend
between 2-4 meters from the terminal manhole and shall be capped and sealed.
4.6.7 Sanitary Sewer Service Lines
All single family residential dwellings and each individual unit in multi-family complexes, and each
commercial business and industrial customer shall be served by a separate, independent sanitary
sewer service line.
4.6.8 Clean-outs
A clean-out is an inclined pipe extending from the ground and connected to the under-ground
sewer. A cleanout is used for cleaning sewer pipes.
A clean-out will be provided at the upper ends of lateral sewers in place of manholes. Cleanouts will
be located at a maximum interval of 30m, at any horizontal deflection greater than 45 degrees, or

November, 2013 63
change in grade, and 2m from the building. The cleanout diameter should match the nominal
diameter of the service line, and the surrounding grading should insure that surface water does not
accumulate around the cleanout.
4.6.9 Ventilation of Sewers
The decomposition and purification of sewage inside the sewers may result in the production of
many various gases Carbon dioxide, Carbon monoxide, Methane and hydrogen sulphide etc. These
gases are disposed of into the atmosphere by exposing the sewage to the outside atmosphere by
suitable method of ventilation.
Another reason for ventilating sewers is to ensure a continuous flow of sewage inside the sewer.
This is achieved by ventilation by keeping the surface of sewage in contact with free air and thus
preventing the formation of air-locks in the sewage. Ventilation shafts shall be provided at an interval
of 300m and at upper end of sewer lines.
4.6.10 Gullies or Catch Pits
Gullies are openings on the road surface at the lowest point for draining rain water from roads, and
admitting into the underground storm water sewers (drains) or combined sewers.
These gullies shall therefore be, located along road sides on straight roads at an interval of 30-60m.
4.6.11 Sand/Oil and Grease Interceptors
Mainly not involved in our project area, because substantial sources of sand/oil and grease etc. are
not involved. However in areas of automobile workshops oil and grease trap can be constructed.
Sewage shall be routed through the trap before entering into main sewer line.
4.7 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY DESIGN CRITERIA
4.7.1 Wastewater influent Characteristics
A very limited wastewater sampling program was conducted as part of the field investigation phase
of this master planning effort. Results were presented in Deliverable #11. Two factors that are likely
to have influenced these results are:
• Dilution: The sewer system is a combined system with significant contributions from storm
water flows. Samples were collected in late August – early September, and August is
historically the third wettest month of the year in Peshawar (www.worldweatheronline.com).
Sampling activities commenced five to six days after a significant rain. This is likely to have
resulted in a good deal of dilution of sanitary wastewaters. Concentrations during dry
weather, and concentrations coming from a possible separate sanitary system, are likely to be
much higher.
• Biodegradation in the Collection System: The late August – early September timeframe is
among the warmer months of the year, sample temperatures are reported generally around
300C, which is on the warm side. This warmth likely resulted in some biodegradation within
the collection system before wastewater reached the sampling points. Lower degradation
rates, and therefore high concentrations, can be expected during the cold winter months.
As a result, care needs to be taken in applying these sample results to future design bases and
planning decisions. While they presumably are representative of conditions at the time they were
collected, they probably are not representative of conditions during other seasons or of future
conditions, and therefore should not be used for planning purposes. Instead, for planning purposes

November, 2013 64
wastewater influent characteristics will be based on typical values observed in similar settings
elsewhere.
BOD5 is one of the principal wastewater constituents effecting treatment facility design. Literature
indicates that BOD5 waste generation can range from 30 to 70 grams/capita/day, with affluent
communities typically producing more BOD than poor communities. Design values in developing
countries typically are in the range of 40 to 45 g/c/d. Therefore, a value of 45 g/c/d will be used for
master planning purposes. (Ref;i-Campos and von Sperling1996, ii-Mara ,2003 iii- Arthur,1983)
Once wastewater discharge rates are determined as described above, this mass loading will be
converted to an equivalent concentration and used to define the wastewater on the scale of weak –
medium – strong as shown in Table 4-11 (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). Other influent wastewater
characteristics will be estimated based on the same weak – medium – strong continuum.
Table 4-11
Typical Composition of untreated domestic wastewater
Concentrations
Contaminants Unit
Weak Medium Strong
Solids, Total (TS) mg/l 350 720 1200
Dissolved, Total (TDS) mg/l 250 500 850
Fixed mg/l 145 300 525
Volatile mg/l 105 200 325
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/l 100 220 350
Fixed mg/l 20 55 75
Volatile mg/l 80 165 275
Settle able Solids mg/l 5 10 20
Biochemical Oxygen demand, mg/l: mg/l 110 220 400
5-day,20 0C (BOD,20 0C)
Total Organic carbon (TOC) mg/l 80 160 290
Chemical Oxygen demand (COD) mg/l 250 500 1000
Nitrogen (total as N) mg/l 20 40 85
Organic mg/l 8 15 35
Free ammonia mg/l 12 25 50
Nitrates mg/l 0 0 0
Nitrates mg/l 0 0 0
Phosphorous (total as P) mg/l 4 8 15
Organic mg/l 1 3 5

November, 2013 65
Table 4-11
Typical Composition of untreated domestic wastewater
Concentrations
Contaminants Unit
Weak Medium Strong
Inorganic mg/l 3 5 10
Chlorides a mg/l 30 50 100
Sulphate a mg/l 20 30 50
Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l 50 100 200
Grease mg/l 50 100 150
Total Coliform b no/100 ml 106-107 107-108 107-109
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) µg/l <100 100-400 >400
a Values should be increased by amount present in domestic water supply

b
See table 3.18 for typical values for other microorganisms.
Influent wastewater characteristics derived from above will be used for master planning purposes.
However, a sampling program will be required prior to commencement of any facility design work,
in order to better define wastewater characteristics specific to the Peshawar region.
4.7.2 Septage Characteristics
Septage is the residue removed from wastewater treatment facilities such as latrines and septic
tanks. These systems need to be cleaned periodically, and septage needs to be managed, treated and
disposed of to avoid pollution. Metcalf & Eddy report the following characteristics of septage.
Table 4-12
Characteristics of Septage
Items Concentration (mg/L)
Range Typical
Total solids (TS) 5,000 – 100,000 40,000
Suspended solids (SS) 4,000 – 100,000 15,000
Volatile suspended solids (VSS) 1,200 – 14,000 7,000
5-day, 20oC BOD5 2,000 – 30,000 6,000
COD 5,000 – 80,000 30,000
TKN (as N) 100 – 1,600 700
Ammonia (as N) 100 – 800 400
Total phosphorus (as P) 50 – 800 250
Heavy metals (iron, zinc, & aluminum) 100 – 1,000 300

November, 2013 66
A sampling program will be required prior to commencement of any facility detailed design work in
order to better define septage characteristics specific to the Peshawar region.
4.7.3 Wastewater Discharge Criteria
Pakistan’s Environmental protection ordinance xxvii-1997 and local government ordinance 1979/80
established National Environmental Quality Standards for Municipal and Liquid Industrial Effluents, as
presented in the Table 4-13.
Table 4-13
National Environmental Quality Standards for Municipal and Liquid Industrial Effluents
(mg/unless otherwise defined)
Revised Standard
Standards
S.
Existing
Into sewage
Treatment
Parameter
Into land
Into Sea
No
Waters
1 Temperature or Temperature Increase * 40 0C =<3 0C =<3 0C =<30C
2 pH value 6-10 6-9 6-9 6-9
3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)5 at 20 80 80 250 80**

0C
4 Chemical Oxygen demand (COD) 150 150 400 400
5 Total suspended solids 150 200 400 200
6 Total dissolved solids 3500 3500 3500 3500
7 Grease and Oil 10 10 10 10
8 Phenolic compounds (as Phenol) 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3
9 Chloride 1000 1000 1000 SC***
10 Fluoride 20 10 10 10
11 Cyanide (as CN) total 2 1.0 1.0 1.0
12 An-ionic detergents 20 20 20 20
13 Sulphate 600 600 1000 SC**
14 Sulphide 1 1 1 1
15 Ammonia 40 40 40 40
16 Pesticides 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
17 Cadmium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
18 Chromium (trivalent and hexavalent) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

November, 2013 67
Table 4-13
National Environmental Quality Standards for Municipal and Liquid Industrial Effluents
(mg/unless otherwise defined)
Revised Standard
Standards
S.
Existing
Into sewage
Treatment
Parameter
Into land
Into Sea
No
Waters
19 Copper 1 1 1 1
20 Lead 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
21 Mercury 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
22 Selenium 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
23 Nickel 1 1 1 1
24 Silver 1 1 1 1
25 Total toxic metals 2 2 2 2
26 Zinc 5 5 5 5
27 Arsenic 1 1 1 1
28 Barium 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
29 Iron 2 8 8 8
30 Manganese 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
31 Boron 6 6 6 6
32 Chlorine 1 1 1 1
Explanations:
1. Assuming minimum dilution 1:10 on discharge, lower ratio would attract progressively
stringent standards to be determined by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. By
1:10 dilutions means, for example that for each one cubic meter of treated effluent, the
recipient water body should have 10 cubic meter of water for dilution of this effluent.
2. Modified Benzene Alkyl Sulphate; assuming surf cent as biodegradable.
3. Pesticides include herbicides, fungicides and insecticides.
4. Subject to total toxic metals discharge should not exceed level given at S.No 25.
5. Applicable if sewage treatment is operational and BOD of 80 mg/l is achieved by treatment.
6. If discharge is not at shore and not within 10 miles of mangrove or other important estuaries.
* The effluent should not result in temperature increase of more than 3 0C at the
edge of the zone where initial mixing and dilution take place in the receiving body. In
case zone is not defined, use100 meters from point of discharge
** The value for industry is 200 mg/l.

November, 2013 68
*** Discharge concentration at or below sea concentration (SC)
Note:-
1. Dilution of liquid effluents to bring them to the NEQS limiting value is not permissible through
fresh water mixing with effluents before discharging into the environment.
2. The concentration of pollutants in water being used will be subtracted from the effluent for
calculating the NEQS limits.
4.7.4 Sludge and Septage Disposal Criteria
No Pakistan-specific regulations have been identified that establish criteria for land disposal of sludge
and septage. The World Bank/IFC EHS Guidelines establish general guidelines for management of
wastewater sludges, including evaluation to determine if they constitute a hazardous waste, but also
does not establish specific numeric standards for sludge disposal.
USEPA’s Part 503 regulations establish procedures and limits associated with land disposal of
wastewater treatment sludges. These regulations establish contaminant concentrations limits for
unrestricted land disposal as follows:
Table 4-14
Concentration Limits for Different Contaminants
Parameter Maximum Limit (mg/kg) Monthly Average Limit (mg/kg)
Arsenic 75 41
Cadmium 85 39
Copper 4,300 1,500
Lead 840 300
Mercury 57 17
Molybdenum 75 --
Nickel 420 420
Selenium 100 36
Zinc 7,500 2,800
Sludges that do not meet these limits also may be disposed of on land, but additional limits apply to
the cumulative loadings of contaminants on an annual and total basis.
The Part 503 regulations also establish two classes of sludge suitable for land disposal based on
pathogen and vector-attraction reduction. Class A biosolids meet the highest standards, and are
considered suitable for unrestricted land application including use on lawns and home gardens. Class
B biosolids meet a lesser standard, and must be disposed of under controlled conditions such as
landfill disposal. Compliance with either of these standards requires a combination of analytical
results and treatment process operational conditions to demonstrate adequate pathogen reduction
for safe disposal.
The Part 503 regulations will be used for establishing wastewater treatment sludge disposal
requirements for this project and for evaluating the feasibility of land application of treated sludge.

November, 2013 69
5.0 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
5.1 GOVERNING LEGISLATION, POLICIES & GUIDELINES
5.1.1 Existing Legal Framework on Solid Waste Management

The major breakthrough towards the enactment of laws concerning environmental management in
Pakistan is with the enactment of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) in 1997,
which is the most recent and updated legislation at the federal level. Besides this other laws
concerning solid waste management include the following:
i) Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA)

ii) The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act, 2012
iii) Hospital Wastes Management Rules 2005.
iv) National Environmental Policy 2005.
v) National Sanitation Policy (Revised Draft March 2006).
vi) Hazardous Substances Rules of 1999.
Pakistan Environmental Protection Act - 1997
Section 11 of this act deals with the solid waste management and it prohibits discharge of waste in an
amount or concentrations that violates the National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS).
However, this act does not provide any NEQS for solid waste.
The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government Act- 2012

For practical purposes Section 204 part II ‘‘Offences Under the Act’’ of “The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Local Government Act, 2012” is being used in the city to punish people committing offence with
regards to solid waste. For this purpose the provisions of chapter viii, x and of the schedule III of the
said ordinance are used.
Hospital Waste Management Rules 2005

These rules were made under the powers conferred by PEPA in 1997. Under these rules,
i) Every hospital is responsible for the management of the waste generated by it till its final
disposal. It will prepare a waste management plan. Risk waste and non-risk waste shall be
separated and central storage facilities provided for both, separately. Risk waste shall be
inactivated by suitable means including autoclaving or incineration.
There are serious flaws in these laws, rules and regulations concerning solid waste management.
Therefore there is an urgent need to prepare a solid waste management law with clear rules and
regulations concerning solid waste management.
5.1.2 Policy – Planning, Design, Construction, Operation
National Environmental Policy - 2005

Under this policy provisions for solid waste management are:
i) Devise and implement National Sanitation Policy.

ii) Encourage reduction, recycling, and reuse of municipal and industrial solid and liquid wastes.
iii) Develop and implement strategies for integrated management of wastes at national, provincial
and local levels.

November, 2013 70
National Sanitation Policy (Revised Draft 2006)
The provisions in the revised draft concerning SWM are:
i) The private sector – Community – NGO linkages in solid waste management in Pakistan are
well established. City Government and TMAs will identify these good practices, assign roles
and responsibilities through consultations and invest in promoting them.
ii) All TMAs and/ or City District Governments will develop landfill sites for the disposal of solid
waste. These landfill sites and collection and disposal system can be a public private
partnership or contracted out to the private sector. In any case, the involvement of the formal
and informal solid waste recycling industry will be sought.
5.1.3 Guidelines for Solid Waste Management
Pak-EPA issued these guideline in 2005. It is a comprehensive document. It mentions the situation in
year 2005, provides a strategy for improvement, proposes SWM guidelines, and gives an Action Plan.
5.2 CURRENT AND FUTURE DEMAND
5.2.1 Current Demand

The current demand in terms of average quantities of waste generated are presented in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Current Demand (Year 2013)
Land use / activity Source waste Recyclables Residual Waste
tons/day tons/day tons/day
Residential Hayatabad 72 41 31
Residential elsewhere 613 61 552
Commercial 45 32 13
Industrial 44 23 21
Institutional 0.4 0.3 3.7
Construction & demolition 114 91 23
Streets & public places 2 0 2
Total 894 248 (28%) 646 (72%)
5.2.2 Peaking Factors

Peaking factors need to be adopted for collection of waste in order to estimate variations in waste
generation, for which a collection service will be provided. A peaking factor of 1.5 will be adopted
for the purpose of determining regular waste management services. A peaking factor of 3 will be
adopted for exceptional occasions, like “Eid Ul Azha”, when additional services need to be provided.
5.2.3 Future Demand

With growth in population and rise in the living standard, the waste generation rate is expected to
rise, which is in accord with the international experience. The average generation rate, determined
in year 2013 was 0.546 kg/capita/day. It is assumed that the average waste generation rate will be
increased to 0.59 kg/capita/day in year 2032. Estimated future waste quantities are presented in
Table 5-2. Provisional estimates for waste management system components are that 90% of the total
generation will be collected, 60% of collected waste will be composted, 20% will be recycled and
20% landfilled. The assessment will consider methods to enhance collection performance and waste
minimization.

November, 2013 71
Table 5-2
Future Demand
Source Waste Collection ②
Composting ③ Recycling ④
Population Per Capita
Year Daily Daily
①
per day
(Tons) (Tons) Yearly Daily Daily
(kg)
(Tons) (Tons) (Tons)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
2013 1635694 0.546 893 804 293380 482 161
2014 1673806 0.546 914 823 300215 494 165
2015 1712805 0.55 942 848 309461 509 170
2016 1752714 0.55 964 868 316672 521 174
2017 1793552 0.555 995 896 326996 538 179
2018 1835342 0.555 1019 917 334615 550 183
2019 1875536 0.56 1050 945 345024 567 189
2020 1916610 0.56 1073 966 352580 580 193
2021 1958584 0.565 1107 996 363518 598 199
2022 2001477 0.565 1131 1018 371479 611 204
2023 2045309 0.57 1166 1049 382974 630 210
2024 2086829 0.57 1189 1071 390748 642 214
2025 2129191 0.575 1224 1102 402178 661 220
2026 2172414 0.575 1249 1124 410342 675 225
2027 2216514 0.58 1286 1157 422312 694 231
2028 2261509 0.58 1312 1181 430885 708 236
2029 2305835 0.585 1349 1214 443118 728 243
2030 2351029 0.585 1375 1238 451803 743 248
2031 2397109 0.59 1414 1273 464596 764 255
2032 2444093 0.59 1442 1298 473702 779 260
Foot Notes:
①Growth Rate:
2013- 2018 =2.33%
2019- 2023 =2.19%
2024- 2028 =2.03%
2029- 2032 =1.96%
②Collection = assumes 90% of generation

③Composting = assumes 60% of collection
④Recycling = assumes 20% of collection

November, 2013 72
5.3 LEVELS OF SERVICE
The level of service is the minimum service provided by the authority responsible for providing the
waste collection. If a householder or a business wants a higher level of service, they can purchase
this from the market. A level of service needs to be decided for primary and secondary collection
and storage. The following staging strategy for levels of service will be adopted
5.3.1 Staging Strategy
• Stage 1 up to 2022 – establish a source waste collection system for land uses and activities
currently served by public sector; leave industrial waste and Construction and demolition
waste (C&D) waste to the private sector; leave resource recovery to the private informal
sector, monitor performance, gather information about private sector and informal sector;
review the strategy for waste services and resource recovery services
• Stage 2 from 2022 upto 2032 –implement findings of the review e.g. refine waste
collection system; support resource recovery services, support private sector in targeted
ways or provide a two bin system (e.g. one for organic material recovery and another for
residual waste).
5.3.2 Stage 1 Levels of Service

Levels of service (LOS) for primary collection for different land use areas are given in the Table 5-3.
The adopted meaning of primary collection is shifting waste from primary storage units in properties
to the secondary storage unit (e.g. community containers), transfer station or to a landfill site.
Table 5-3
Levels of Service (LOS) for Primary Collection
Primary Basic Nominated
Details about
Collection Level of values for Controls
Service Service LoS
LoS
1 Residential
Areas
Kerbside
Collection Not provided -
/door to door
Provided
Street widths/available
Spacing 50 m
land
Access height < 1.2 m
Frequency of At least 1 Hours of
emptying daily work/capacity/spacing
High income
Hours of work/traffic
Community Hours for Preferably at
Bins
controls/ locations of
emptying night
containers
Capacities
land
Lids or not 800-1000 litre
land
Municipal Good practice/
Material accepted
waste practicalities
Kerbside
Collection / Not provided As above
Medium income
door to door
Community Provided

November, 2013 73
Table 5-3
Details about
Service Service
LoS
LoS
Bins Spacing -do-
Frequency of
emptying
Hours for emptying
Material accepted
As above
Kerbside
Collection / Not provided?
door to door
Capacities
Spacing
Low income
Frequency of
Community -do-
emptying
Bins
Hours for
emptying
Material accepted
Shopping malls,
Activities served markets, Slaughter houses - no
Hotels
Commercial Community
2 Street widths/available
Areas Bins Capacities 800-1000 litre
land
Spacing
land
Frequency of at least once Hours of
emptying daily work/capacity/spacing
Hours of work/traffic
Hours for
At night controls/ locations of
emptying
containers
Material accepted
3 Industrial
No service
Areas
Capacities 7m3 /100 litre
land
Hours of work /capacity
Frequency of At least once /spacing/ size of
emptying daily institution/ day time,
residential or both
4 Institutions Institution Bins
Hours of work/ traffic
Hours for controls/ locations of
Early morning
emptying secondary containers or
landfill
Material accepted
5 Capacities
land
(As per Hours of work /capacity
Health Care Institution Bins
Frequency of requirement ) /spacing/ size of hospital
emptying once or twice or clinic/ incineration or
daily not

November, 2013 74
Table 5-3
Details about
Service Service
LoS
LoS
Hours of work/ traffic
Hours for Morning/ controls/ locations of
emptying evening secondary containers or
landfill
Non-
Good practice/ hazardous
Material accepted hazardous(mun
waste to be incinerated
icipal wastes)
6 Construction Service to be
Containers to be
provided on rental
& Demolition contracted
basis
7 Road priority system,
street width, activities
Sweeping Frequency
nearby eg drain cleaning,
market, pavement service
Streets &
Road priority system,
Public Spaces street width, activities
Washing Frequency
nearby eg drain cleaning,
market
Litter bins Capacities 40-50 litre Efficient handling
Bus stops, foot
Locations pats, markets, Capacity, demand
public places
Hours of work /capacity
Emptying At least once
/spacing/ size of street or
frequency daily
park/
5.4 APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES AND SITING CRITERIA
5.4.1 Primary Collection

Appropriate technology options will be introduced for primary collection, secondary storage
containers, secondary collection, and street sweeping operations. Criteria for the facilities will be as
presented in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4
Primary Collection Vehicles Suitability
Average
Option capacity Advantages Disadvantages Suitable
kg/trip
Hand cart Suitable for narrow streets Small load Not suitable
without 40 Need overturning
Most manoeuvrable
containers to get waste out
Hand cart Suitable for narrow streets Small load Yes- all areas
with 60 Most manoeuvrable Bulky waste
containers Direct unloading into large container unaccepted
Perception of ‘out
Locally available at very low cost Yes- all areas
Donkey & of date’
300
cart Suitable for narrow streets Dung in streets
No fossil fuel needed
Mechanically tip out waste Suitable for
Mini-dumpers 300 Staff training needed Yes- all areas
narrow streets

November, 2013 75
5.4.2 Secondary Storage Facilities
Open waste storage sites and facilities made of cement or masonry construction will be replaced in a
phased manner by a waste storage facility in the form of mobile closed-body large containers, or
parked vehicles.
Communal containers provided as primary or secondary storage units will be small enough to meet
the level of service criteria. These communal containers will be designed so as to be compatible with
the collection and transportation system and to avoid unnecessary handling of waste. Table 5-5
presents types of containers suitable for primary storage and secondary storage
Table 5-5
Secondary Storage Containers Suitability
Design
Kg
Yes for all areas

Need improvements in
0.8 m3 (liftable) 180 Suitable for all areas with improved
design
design
1.1m3(M.S i) Suitable for all areas Lid causes hindrance in Yes for all areas
264
Containers) ii) robust design loading without lid
i) Handle large volume
ii) Suitable for vegetable and
Suitable for use
7 m3 4,480 fruit market and other such
on specific places
places where large volumes
of waste are generated.
Not suitable for Yes for transfer
22 m3 14,500 Suitable at transfer station
general use station
5.4.3 Secondary Storage (Containers) Siting Criteria

Large metal containers (7m3) without lids will be placed at distances not exceeding 250 meters. (i.e
at a spacing of 500 meters between the two containers).
In areas where the placement of large containers is not workable, small containers of 0.8 to 1 m3
size may be placed on roads, lanes, and by-lanes at distances not exceeding 100 meters. These bins
should be placed on paved foundation and emptied daily.
Other requirements with respect to Levels of Service (LOS) are as given Table 5-6.
Table 5-6
Levels of Service for Secondary Containers
Container
LOS
0.8 m3 1.1 m3 7 m3
Spacing 100-150m 150-200m 500m
Frequency of emptying
At least daily At least daily At least 4 times/week
Hours for emptying morning morning morning
Capacities 180kg 264kg 4480kg
Lids or not no-lids no-lids no-lids
Material accepted Municipal waste Municipal waste Municipal waste

November, 2013 76
5.4.4 Secondary Collection Technology Criteria
The design of the secondary collection will be based on the waste generation catchment area served
and in accord to the daily waste quantities as presented in this report. Allowance for peak quantities
will be made using the adopted peaking factors. Advantages, disadvantages and suitability of different
collection vehicles are given in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7
Secondary Collection Vehicles Suitability
Average
Kg/trip
i. Yes for
i. Good capacity emergency
Open body trucks
ii. Suitable for large volumes Manual loading shovel duties
With hydraulic 3900
and all types of waste, to be not available ii. Not for
unloading
loaded by shovel normal duty
Yes for
Low cost, can be used in Manual loading if
Tractor trolleys 3600 emergency
place of open body trucks shovel not available
duties
Handle 800-1000 litre
Compactor truck Not suitable for
3710 containers, placed at Yes- all areas
7m3 debris
convenient distances
Needs improvement
Large load capacity
in design to contain
Hoist Trucks 4500 Suitable for almost all types Yes- Markets
the waste during
of waste
transportation
5.4.5 Street widths and Vehicles

Street width mapping using GIS has been carried out for the purpose of selecting appropriate
collection vehicles for primary and secondary collection. Street width categories and associated
vehicle suitability is presented in Table 5-8.
Table 5-8
Street Width Categories
Street width category Usable Vehicle Types
<3.5 m Handcarts, donkey carts, mini-dumpers
3.6m to 4 m Small tractor trolleys
Open body trucks , tractor trolleys,

>6m
compactor trucks, hoist trucks
The Road Network Hierarchy is illustrated in Figure 5-1.

November, 2013 77
Figure 5-1 Road Network Hierarchy
5.4.6 Street Cleaning Criteria

5.4.6.1 Manual sweeping
Manual sweeping system location criteria are as follows.

November, 2013 78
i) Types of streets served and frequency
All public roads, streets, lanes and bye-lanes having habitation or commercial activity on one
or both sides shall be cleaned on a daily basis. A clearly demarcated area shall be assigned to
each sweeper. Street sweepings shall be deposited in primary or secondary collection
containers.
ii) Allocation of Beats
1. High density area = 250 to 350 running meters of road length
2. Medium density area = 400 to 600 running meters of road length
3. Low density area = 650 to 750 running meters of road length.
iii) Working hours
Working hour requirements will be estimated using the relevant waste generation factor.
5.4.6.2 Mechanical Sweepings
i. Mechanical sweepers will be used for selected major roads of the city.
ii. Types of sweepers= Truck mounted
iii. Working hours= Early morning
5.4.7 Litter Bins Criteria

i. Locations
Litter bins shall be placed in urban areas, railway stations, bus stations, market places, parks,
gardens and important commercial streets where primary or secondary containers are not
available. Waste from the litter bins will be transferred by hand carts to secondary containers.
ii. Provisions on no cost basis
The provision of litter bins may be self-funding by involving the private sector and giving them
advertising rights on the bins for a specified period or by allowing them to put their names on
the bins as sponsors.
iii. Design Criteria
Design criteria are:
• Capacity 40 to 50 litres
• Made of Plastic or mild steel material
• Spacing25 to 250 meters depending on local conditions
5.4.8 Transfer Stations Criteria

5.4.8.1 Transfer Station Principles
The need for and design of transfer stations will be determined on the basis of materials flow
analysis.
Transfer stations will be designed on the basis of:
i) Simple direct-discharge type transfer stations with a ramp facility to facilitate unloading
directly into 20m3 containers to receive waste from small vehicles or parked compactor
trucks
ii) avoiding complicated and expensive construction
iii) provision for maintenance of large vehicles and containers
iv) the total quantities of waste to be handled and the number of transfer trips needed for the
design waste catchment.

November, 2013 79
5.4.8.2 Transfer Station Siting Criteria
Where possible, transfer stations will be located:
i) As near as possible to the weighted center of the solid waste areas to be served
ii) Within easy access of major arterial highway routes or near secondary or supplemental
transport routes
iii) where there will be a minimum of public and environmental objection to the transfer
operations
iv) where construction and operation will be most economical.
Types of transfer station:
• Large Bin(Direct Discharge Type) 7m3 or larger (covered under bin siting criteria)
• Parked Compactor TruckAs in Lahore
• Storage Type not recommended
Factors that will contribute to the decisions about transfer stations are:
• Cost – would the option make the waste collection system more or less expensive
• Siting logistics – for example, can a site be found for a transfer stations.
5.4.9 Reduction of Waste and Maximization of Waste Recovery Criteria

5.4.9.1 National Strategy for Waste Recovery
One of the design criteria requirement is to meet the objectives of the National SWM strategy 5 ,
which is the adoption of the principle of internationally recognized waste hierarchy (of 3R) i.e.
i) Minimizing the waste as a first priority, then

ii) Reuse and recycling of waste (utilizing waste as a resource) and then,
iii) Treatment and disposal of the remaining portion.
This means that highest priority is to be given to waste prevention, followed by reuse and recycling.
5.4.9.2 Resource Recovery Criteria

Methods to consider in the options assessment for waste reduction and recycling include:
i) encouraging households, shops and other establishments separate recyclable material,

unwanted food and other bio-degradable material, and facilitating private informal sector
collection of these materials
ii) setting up pilot projects for source segregation of unwanted materials and downstream uses
of these materials
iii) providing small and micro-scale resource recovery enterprises with assistance from the banks
iv) reserving separate areas at landfills sites for the private informal sector to search for
recyclable and reusable materials from newly arrived waste, possibly by spreading the waste
with a tractor with shovel, and providing workers with protective gear and other facilities.
An example of what can be achieved was documented in the Detailed Assessment and Evaluation
Report -Deliverable No. 11 (October - 2013). This was a report on part of the Field Investigation
Plan which involved a study into resource recovery practice that is carried in Hayatabad by
monitoring the donkey-cart waste collection service. The collectors separate out recyclables as a
source of income. Some food waste is separated for feeding to cattle. The results of the study
indicated that approximately 67 % of the material put out for collection is recycled and 33% waste is
disposed of at the dump site.
5
Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Oct 2005 by Pak-EPA

November, 2013 80
5.5 DISPOSAL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA
5.5.1 Overview
In Pakistan, until now, disposal and treatment of solid waste has not been practiced using modern
design practice, except for one composting plant in Lahore. Efforts are being made to develop
sanitary landfilling in Lahore and Multan. The use of solid waste to prepare refuse derived fuel (RDF)
is also being investigated for Multan and a waste to energy plant is being investigated for Lahore.
Also several technologies are being advocated by private entrepreneurs for the processing,
treatment and/or disposal of municipal solid waste in India. Some have Indian experience such as
microbial composting and Vermi-composting. Some are based on applications in other countries
which are yet to be tried for their success or have failed in India, such as incineration, power
generation and fuel pelletisation. Some local bodies have been doing composting of waste, with very
limited success. 6
Primary options that will be considered for the assessment are sanitary landfilling and composting.
Secondary options will be waste to energy and refuse derived fuel.
5.5.2 Siting Criteria for Composting and Landfill Facilities

The heart and life-line of any waste-management strategy is the availability of land for composting
sites and for landfill sites. Composting and landfill activities are most unwanted by neighbor, their
locations are strenuously opposed by the public because of their nuisance and polluting impacts if
poorly managed and there is fear of devaluation of the property. To mitigate this problem, a robust
site selection process that involves social, environmental and financial evaluations should be adopted.
Site selection criteria include identifying sites that are:
1. large enough in area to last for 25 or minimum 15 years 7

2. Far enough from the present city limits to ensure long life even when the city expands, while
keeping transport costs as low as possible (ie 5 to10 km) (Inner-city sites are suitable for
construction and demolition debris only where no lining or treatment of leachate is required.
3. At least 300 meters and preferably 500 meters away from nearest habitation or planned
housing development site and 300 m away from a public park. (It is easier to relocate the
housing or industrial project than to find a site that meets all criteria).
4. close to major highways (along which ribbon development always takes place) and preferably
within 500 meters from a major district road and larger roads (Daily garbage trucks should
avoid National Highways eg 250 tons waste per day implies 60-80 collection vehicle trips to
and from in 4-6 hours).
5. At least 500 meters away from perennial streams, major seasonal river-beds or the high-
water-mark of a lake, and at least 200 meters from minor streams over 10 m wide, the high-
water mark of a minor lake, or an open well used by locals.
6. Located preferably across the river from the main populated area, to prevent rapid urban
expansion near it.
7. Preferably avoid routing options which will severely overburden busy roads.
8. Preferably located within a city’s “green belt”, where urban development is restricted.
9. preferably on low-porosity soil (permeability less than 10–7 cm/sec), or un-fractured sheet-
rock
10. Preferably having a slight natural slope for the collection of leachate by gravity.
Other criteria for sites are as follows.
6 Solid Waste Management in Class-1 Cities in India

7 Guidelines for Solid Waste Management Oct 2005 by Pak-EPA

November, 2013 81
11. A buffer zone for No Future -Development should be declared in the Town Planning
Department’s land-use plans; to prevent objections by future neighbors in later years before
the site life is exhausted. At that time, before any nearby areas are re-zoned for residential or
commercial use, is absolutely necessary to identify and procure an alternate site and shift
operations to the alternate selected site.
12. The ‘No-Development” status of Survey Numbers within this buffer zone must be entered on
the Village RTC (Record of Tenancy and Crops) or Property Registers of the concern towns,
to alert persons considering the purchase of unauthorized house sites in such areas.
13. The base of landfills should be at least 3 meters above the highest seasonal ground-water
levels.
14. A nearby source of impervious clay for lining the landfill is an added advantage.
In order to prevent legal delays relevant local and High Courts should be informed of proposed site
and the requested well in advance to be given a hearing before passing of any stay orders (preferably
time-bound, with a maximum of 3 months for proving title) on the Survey Numbers of the proposed
site. This is to prevent legal delays.
A site selection investigation has been carried out to identify potential feasible land sites. The results
are presented in Figure 5-2.

November, 2013 82
Figure 5-2 Potential Sites for Sanitary Landfills and Composting Plants
A preliminary assessment of the possible landfill or composting sites has been carried out and the
results for the most suitable sites are presented in Tables 5-9 and 5-10. Further work will be
undertaken in determining the requirements for the future landfill sites and with particularly
requirements of the service area.

November, 2013 83
Table 5-9
Assessment of Potential Sites For Final Disposal Of Solid Waste (Sanitary Landfilling/Composting)
Site No. 1 2 3 4 5
Site near Ahmad Khel along Site in UC Shahi Bala near Site near Regi Lalma Town Site in Village Mosazai and
Site Selection Hazar Khwani site along STP
Sr. Warsak Gravity Canal Sheikh Yaseen Town along Warsak Gravity Canal Surizai
Criteria of Pak-
No. Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/
EPA Situation Situation Situation Situation Situation
suitability suitability suitability suitability suitability
Adequate land area
to meet projected Large Area about More than 81 More than 10
1 11 Hectares     Large area 
needs for a useful life 46 Hectares Hectares Hectares
of at least 20 years
Man-made Plain and partially
depressions with undulated with
2 Topography   Mostly undulated  Almost plain  Plain area 
6 to 18 meter man-made
depth depressions
Purely barren land
partially being used
Present use of this Use for making Purely
3  as borrow pits for  Purely barren Land  Under cultivation  
site Bricks agricultural land
proposed Ring
Road
Seasonally high water
table level of
groundwater to be
below the proposed
Low
base of landfill
More than 5 Approximately 27
(minimum 1.2 m Adequately low Adequately low
4 meters from the    meters from  6-12 m 
separation distance). (3-6 meters) (6 meters)
bottom of existing ground level
Permeability of soils
ditches.
(10-6 cm/sec). It
should not be a
groundwater
recharge area.
Buffer zone of no-
Adequately
5 development around Available   Presently available  Partially available  Present 
available
landfill site exists
Landfill site to be 10
km away from
Airport. However
EPA guideline further 3 km from the
suggest that Peshawar Airport.
About 10 km away At a distance 11 km At a distance 10 km
permission of Civil May be acceptable
6  from Airport  from airport.  from airport.  7 km 
Aviation Authority according to
(Meets the criteria) (Meets the criteria) (Meets the criteria)
(CAA) may be Tchobanoglous et
sought in case of site al – see note 1
selection having
distance less than 10
km

November, 2013 84
Small houses and
No housing scheme No significant
7  No housing scheme  No housing scheme  commercial area  Not present 
within 300 meters. housing nearby
nearby.
Relatively Low Relatively High
8 Land Cost  Low cost  Relatively Low cost  Relatively High cost  
cost cost
2.5 km from Ring
About 500 meter About 9 km from Road along Hazar
9 Distance from About 1.5 km
 from Proposed  Jamrud Road along  Along Ring Road  Khwani Branch 
arterial road from ring road
Ring Road Warsak Gravity Canal (Road to be
constructed)
10 Security Situation No Security Risk  No Security Risk  No Security Risk  No Security Risk  No security Risk 
Selection Priority 1 2 3 4 5
Table 5-10
Site No. 6 7 8 9 10
Land acquired by Municipal
Site near Sangu Village Site Near Achini Bala Site Near Sheikhan Village Site near Sheikh Muhammadi village
Sr. Site Selection Criteria corporation near Garhi Baghbanan
No. of Pak-EPA Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/
Situation Situation Situation Situation Situation
Adequate land area to
meet projected needs for
1 About 4.5 ha  Large Area  Large area  Large area  Large area 
a useful life of at least 20
years
Plain area with
2 Topography Plain area  Plain Area  Plain Area  Plain Area  
some undulations
Agricultural land
Barren land masonry
3 Present use of this site  Agricultural land  Agricultural land  Agricultural land  mostly covered by 
boundary wall
Graveyard
Seasonally high water
table level of groundwater
to be below the proposed
base of landfill (minimum
4 1.2 m separation distance). GW 3-6 m  12-18 meter  6-12 meter  12-18 meter  12-18 meter 
Permeability of soils (10-6
cm/sec). It should not be a
groundwater recharge
area.
Buffer zone of no-
5 development around No develop-ment  Present  Present  Present  Present 
landfill site exists
Landfill site to be 10 km
away from Airport.
However EPA guideline
further suggest that 16 km from airport.
6  About 6 km  About 2.5 km  7 km  5 km 
permission of Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA)
may be sought in case of
site selection having

November, 2013 85
Table 5-10
Site No. 6 7 8 9 10
Land acquired by Municipal
Site near Sangu Village Site Near Achini Bala Site Near Sheikhan Village Site near Sheikh Muhammadi village
Sr. Site Selection Criteria corporation near Garhi Baghbanan
No. of Pak-EPA Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/ Adequacy/
Situation Situation Situation Situation Situation
distance less than 10 km
No housing scheme within
7 No housing scheme  Not present  Not present  Not present  Not present 
300 meters.
Owned by Municipal
8 Land Cost  Low cost  High Cost  Low cost  Low cost 
Corp
About 11.5 km from
9 Distance from arterial 4 km from Bara 500 meters from Ring
Ring Road along Garhi    5 km from Bara road  3.5 km 
road Road Road
Baghbanan Road
Owned by Municipal High Security Risk High Security Risk
10 Security Situation   No Security Risk  High Security Risk area  
Corp area area
Selection Priority 6 Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable
Note:
1. “Integrated Solid Waste Management by George Tchobanoglous” suggest a distance of > 3 Km from an Airport

November, 2013 86
5.5.3 Landfill Design Criteria
The design criteria that need to address are as follows:
• Type of Landfill: Area and trench method or other methods as appropriate

• Waste Acceptability: All municipal waste to be accepted except hazardous waste
• Site Layout and Concept Development Design: The site layout should contain site office,
weigh bridge, drainage for surface water runoff, rainy season arrangements, shelter for guards
and landfill machinery site for stockpiling soil for cover
• Liner System Design: To keep the cost down, use of clay should be made to provide an
impermeable liner at the bottom, sides and at the top.
• leachate management system
• Surface Water Design and Drainage: Drains are to be provided on all the four sides for
surface runoff during rainy seasons.
• Landfill cover: Provisions of daily cover will be uneconomical. Intermediate cover with 15 cm
thickness after every 3 meter depth and final cover of at least 60 cm thickness (30 cm clay and
30 cm soil) with a mild slope of 2-3 % should be provided.
Land Requirements and Number of Sites
A landfill footprint of an estimated 30 acres is required for landfilling up to the year 2032. If more
than one operation site is to be considered, a cost-benefit analysis is required taking account of
development, operational and transportation costs.
Appropriate design guidelines should be adopted. General guidance is presented in Pak-EPA’s

“Guideline for Solid Waste Management”.
5.5.4 Composting Plant Design Criteria

The design criteria that need to address are as follows:
• Storage at the plant: the waste storage area should have impermeable base with facility for
leachate collection.
• Environmental management: Necessary precautions need to be taken to minimize nuisance of
odor, flies, rodents and fire hazards
• Contingency: In case of plant break down, arrangements should exist for diversion of organic
material to landfill.
• Windrow composting: Windrow composting may be preferably adopted; the window area
should also have impermeable base for leachate collection arrangements.
Appropriate design guidelines should be adopted. General guidance is presented in Pak-EPA’s
“Guideline for Solid Waste Management”.
5.5.5 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Criteria

Three type of combustion systems have been employed for thermal processing of solid waste which
are
i. Mass fired combustion

ii. Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) fired combustion
iii. Fluidized Bed combustion
Out of these three, best results have been obtained by RDF combustion process.

November, 2013 87
The physical composition of the solid waste in Peshawar reaching the disposal sites indicates that a
high proportion of combustible matter is present which can be separated for preparation of RDF.
Criteria for this purpose include:
i. Good proportion of combustible wastes should be available in the solid wastes

ii. The process of separation and pelletisation into RDF should be economical.
5.6 WORKSHOPS
Adequate workshop facilities for the maintenance of vehicles, containers, hand carts and other plant
need to be provided. Such facilities should have adequate technical staff, spares and preventive
maintenance schedule to ensure that at least 80% of the vehicles remain on the road each day.
5.7 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
A system of gathering and reporting engineering information will be established. The purpose of the
information is to:
• enable the review of resources that form the waste management system including collection
vehicles, storage containers, and landfill capacity requirements
• enable the assessment and design of waste minimisation services such as recyclables collection
and processing, organic material collection and processing and the use of other technologies
such as waste to energy plants
• enables monitoring of customer satisfaction
• enables monitoring of service provider performance in terms of meeting the level of service
requirements
• Enables monitoring of environmental effects.
Performance indicators and the current situation in respect of these are presented in the Table 5-11.
Table 5-11
Performance indicator
Performance indicator Present Situation
Customer satisfaction No routine surveys are undertaken
Composition of waste to landfill. Refer Table 5-5
Number of households that carry out home
None
composting
Quantity (kg) of waste per capita to landfill 0.30 kg/capita
Quantities of waste to landfill (MCP.CB & PDA) 490 tons/day
Quantities of organic material to landfill 316 tons/day
Community bin performance monitoring of:
•overflow
At a few places waste was found smoldering in 7m3
•missed collections
containers
•prohibited waste
•Fires
Landfill performance monitoring of:
•Daily quantities of waste
•Waste density
•quantities of cover used
Open and uncontrolled dumping is practiced
•complaints
•landfill development
•environmental and landfill operation
•Fires
Nature and frequency of inquiries/ complaints No system in place
Accidents No system in place

November, 2013 88
Performance indicators and requirements for monitoring these are presented in Table 5-12.
Table 5-12
Performance indicator
Performance indicator Requirements
Customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction survey
Composition of waste to landfill – composition Composition surveys at landfill

surveys
Number of households that carry out home Survey householders

composting
Quantity (kg) of waste per capita to landfill Analysis based on population served and quantities
of waste to landfill
Quantities of waste to landfill Weigh bridge at landfill; weighing devices on plant
Quantities of recyclable material to landfill Analysis of composition survey
Quantities of organic material to landfill Analysis of composition survey
Community bin performance monitoring of: Service provider performance requirements and
• overflow reporting.
• missed collections
Trained staff
• prohibited waste
• Fires
Landfill performance monitoring of: Service provider performance requirements and

• Daily quantities of waste reporting.
• Waste density
Trained staff
• quantities of cover used
• complaints
• landfill development
• environmental and landfill operation
• Fires
Nature and frequency of inquiries/ complaints Maintain complaints register; period analysis of
register
Accidents Maintain accident register; periodic analysis of

register

November, 2013 89
6.0 COMMUNITY FACTORS
The Community Liaison and Engagement Team (CLET) conducted the following social surveys in the
project defined UCs to collect community perceptions and data regarding water supply, solid waste
management and drainage & sanitation and community development.
1. Sixty nine Focus Group Discussions (35 Men FGD and 34 Women FGD) in 43 UCs with 485
men and 441 women members in 51communities.
2. Socioeconomic baseline survey in 50 UCs, collecting data from a sample of 2756 households
in the project area. Out of this sample, 1407 survey respondents were men and 1349 were
women, 553 were refusals (153 men and 400 women).
6.1 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING COMMUNITY FACTORS
6.1.1 Focus Group Discussions

A total of 69 focus group discussions (FGDs) was conducted from February – July 2013 to collect
qualitative data from community members in the project area. CLET acted as moderators to
facilitate discussions, rather than to direct it with the primary aim to understand the community’s
opinions and insights and to provide an opportunity for the NDC team to listen to local voices.
FGDs were conducted with members of Community Citizen Boards (CCBs)/Community

Organization (COs) which were initially referred to by defunct TMAs. In both men and women
focus groups, there was 14.5 participants from similar socio-economic backgrounds. The team made
sure that FGDs have representations of both women and men.
Thirty-nine (60 percent) of the focus groups included members of the Pakhtun tribe, 15 (23 percent)
contained Afghan refugees, and three (5 percent) are Christian. Sixty percent of focus groups were
in urban areas, and approximately 46 percent of the focus groups were held with women. Thirty-five
percent of all focus groups were held with women from urban areas, 11 percent with women in
rural areas, 29 percent with men from urban areas and 25 percent with men in rural areas.
6.1.2 Socio-economic Baseline Survey

A representative sample of 2756 households was surveyed from 50 UCs in the project area. Out of
this sample, 1407 survey respondents were men (48 percent), 1349 were women (43 percent) and
553 are refusals (153 men and 400 women). The team identified twelve UCs where law and order
situation was not feasible to carry out baseline survey. Therefore after discussion with USAID,
baseline survey in these UCs was cancelled. These UCs include Sheikh Mahammadai, Sheikhan,
Mashogager, Sarband, Pishtakhare Payan, Badabeir, Reggie, Pajjagi, Musazai, Mathra, Daag and Surizai
Payan.
A representative sample was drawn from each of the 50 UCs to collect meaningful information from
households and individuals. This sample included households belonging to different social strata,
religion, culture and geographical areas. This sampling enabled the team to develop an initial
understanding of the situation, identify and differentiate the needs of one or more relevant groups.
With such a sample, group differences could be compared and contrasted and a range of
experiences can be summarized (for example highest and lowest income, access to food, water or
health services, proper solid waste management and sanitation and drainage system and accessible to
communities in the sample, etc.).
In addition, the team focused on contacting a social activist who linked the team with different
households for holding interviews. Where there were no links or a social activist there were refusals
especially from women.

November, 2013 90
Four enumerators (three men and a woman) were trained on how to use the questionnaire and
interview the respondents. They were provided with a guideline to avoid any difficulties during the
survey process. They were also trained on using the database for data entry and analysis. The
findings of baseline survey are summarized below:
6.2 WATER SUPPLY
6.2.1 Access to Drinking Water

Many households are accessing water, but do so independent of municipal services via
private wells, bore holes, or fetching water
• On average, a household uses 11.7 buckets 8 of water per day. Most households surveyed (45
percent) use between 5 and 20 buckets of water per day, to wash clothes, cars, and do other
household chores. Only 6 percent use less than 5 buckets per day, and only 7 percent use
more than 20 buckets per day, while the remaining 42 percent of the sample were not sure.
• 75 percent of the survey respondents store water in their home for the purpose of drinking,
cooking, and washing. Nearly one-third (31 percent) store their drinking water in containers,
30 percent store it in a roof tank, 16 percent store it in both containers and a roof tank, and 3
percent store it in an underground tank. While the rest about 20 percent did not comment.
Nearly 72 percent of the respondents said that the containers were covered.
• 76 percent of the households surveyed reported that, in general they have access to an
adequate amount of water which satisfies their daily needs. However, the general perception
about the quality of water is that it is not safe for drinking.
• Forty three percent of the households have a direct source of water (wells) in their own
house where as forty seven does not have such facilities within their houses. The areas where
the inhabitants are mostly dependent on their own water source, the average level of the
ground water table is 22 meters.
• The expression of the respondents about ground water table varies from 0 to 91 meters i.e.
the expression of 11 percent from 0 to 15 meters, 15 percent from 15 to 30 meters and 7
percent from 30 to 91 meters deep.
• About forty-six percent of the households surveyed in rural areas reported no access to
municipal piping.
• In urban areas most common source of water reportedly used by survey respondents for
drinking and domestic purposes is a pipe water supply system through a household
connection (45 percent), private bore holes (32 percent), public taps (11 percent) while the
remaining are unsure of their water source.
• The majority of urban (87 percent) and rural (85 percent) focus groups cited that existing
tube wells do not meet their current needs, and/or that those tube wells are inaccessible for
some community members.
• About 33 percent respondents have piped connections for more than 10 years, 20 percent for
about 10 years whereas 15 percent have got these connections during the last 5 years.
• The majority of urban (87 percent) and rural (85 percent) focus groups cited that current
tube wells do not meet their needs, and/or that those tube wells are inaccessible for some
community members.
• Breakdown of supply lines is very common. Fifty percent respondents reported that their
connections breakdown from 5 to 10 times in a month whereas small majority think it is more
than 20 times a month.
8
Bucket size= 4 gallons of water. One gallon=3.7 liter of water

November, 2013 91
Access to safe drinking water is a challenge to the vast majority of the population in the
project area; however, community members living in rural areas, the urban poor, and
minorities such as refugees face particular challenges in accessing water
• The large majority (71 percent) of men and women focus group respondents across all urban
and rural UCs reported that they did not have access to safe drinking water.
• Thirty-seven percent of surveyed households reported having installed a water pump or other
water device in their home, while 24 percent have not and the remaining 39 percent have no
system to connect.
• Focus group participants report that the lack of a government water supply system is
particularly apparent for the Afghan Refugees in Chamkani; although the community has its
common bore system, yet they face additional problems because they are living in rented
houses and cannot afford to install hand pumps or private sources of water.
• Sixty-nine percent of rural focus groups reported that households need to install their own
pressure pumps to meet their daily water demands from the public water supply scheme. The
situation in urban area is contrary and about 56 percent expressed no need for this sort of
arrangement.
• Focus group participants report that in the vast majority (87 percent) of the rural areas there
are no tube wells or government water supply systems to meet their daily water
requirements and as such they meet their daily water demands through their own installed
boreholes/ dug wells.
• In almost all (92 percent) of rural communities participating in focus group discussions
reported that they meet their daily water demands from the nearby neighborhoods or
mosques, while 69 percent of are the urban respondents reported that they are not
confronted with the said situation.
• About 27 percent of the survey respondents reported a variance in the water supply in the
winter and summer. In focus group discussions, 81 percent of the rural respondents reported
load shedding in the summer whereas 69 percent of the respondents from urban areas
negated such situation.
Approximately one-fifth of households surveyed fetch their own water, presenting challenges
compounded by social, cultural, and gender barriers
• About 19 percent of households surveyed reported that someone in their family takes the
responsibility of fetching water from outside sources. The other relevant information is
explained in the paras below;
- About 44 percent of households expressed that the task takes less than 10 minutes, 37
percent expressed that it takes 30 minutes, while 16 percent expressed that it takes 45
minutes or longer.
- The sharing of responsibility of water arrangement from outside sources is such that
81 percent are adult man, 8 percent adult woman, 5 percent the boy child and 4
percent the girl child.
- Women focus group participants in Khazana, Pakha Ghulam, Surizi, Pawaka and Tehkal
Bala reported that bringing water from nearby neighborhoods or mosques is
particularly problematic for women as women and children are often reportedly
overburdened with the responsibility of collecting water from neighbors. The presence
neighboring men in their own houses is also a problem whereby the visiting woman
feels uneasy to make use of the available water source from such houses.
- The Afghan Refugees in Chamkani, according to focus group participants, also cannot
fetch water from neighbors to meet their needs due to social stigma, so conditions
become increasingly miserable in extreme summers.

November, 2013 92
6.2.2 Drinking Water Quality
Half of the community reported poor taste, color, or smell of the water they drink
• All focus group respondents with or without access to drinking water reported that they
determine the water’s palatability by its taste and color. One hundred percent of focus groups
in communities without access to drinking water said that they “usually” or “often” notice a
change in the taste or color of their water.
• More than half of the focus group participants pointed out that the taste and color is poor due to
sewage intrusion. In particular, the Daag community said that the Budhni Nala contaminates
their water. Also, leather and carpet industries exist in Khalisa and the resulting chemicals are
pumped directly into the open channel from where such hazardous waste is sucked by the
nearby laid existing water supply distribution network.
• About 22 percent of survey respondents reported that water quality is sometimes bad and
four percent reported that the water is always bad while 61 percent responded that the water
quality is always good. The majority (72 percent) of respondents said that the color of the
water is clear, but water clarity seems to be a problem for 17 percent of the sample.
• About 17 percent of survey respondents reported bad smelling water, while three quarters of
the survey sample said that the water does not smell.
• About 22 percent of survey respondents reported that the water sometimes tastes bad and
two percent said that the water always tastes bad, 27 percent reported that it always tastes
good, and 48 percent had no comment.
• In 87 percent of focus group without safe drinking water, bore holes were cited as a main water
source, only 32 percent of focus groups reported safe drinking water.
• In the north east area of Peshawar district (Khalisa 1 and 2, Khazana, Matra, Daag, Hassan
Ghari 2, Pakha Ghulam, and Wadpaga focus group participants reported that these
communities cannot pay to dig to reach safe water at 22-24 meters deep; thus, 80 percent of
communities in these areas are digging wells that are only 6-9 meters deep, and are therefore
accessing only contaminated water with high turbidity. The majority of these areas is
waterlogged.
The high prevalence of water-related diseases points to very poor and unsafe water for over
one-third of the community in the project area.
• Nearly 16 percent of respondents reported presence in their communities of water-wash

related diseases, caused by lack of clean water for washing. Among the respondents who cited
water-washed diseases, skin infections were the most prevalent (58 percent), followed by eye
infections (29 percent), worm infections (24 percent), and scabies (29 percent).
• About 39 percent of households surveyed reported presence in their communities of water-
based diseases caused by human parasites that live in contaminated water and can spread
through insufficiently cooked fish. Out of the survey respondents who cited specific water-
based diseases, malaria was the most reported disease (reported by 89 percent of survey
respondents), followed by respiratory tract infections (11 percent) and dengue (10 percent).
• About 34 percent of households reported the presence in their communities of waterborne
diseases caused by drinking water that has been contaminated by bacteria that often comes
from human and animal waste. Among survey respondents who cited specific waterborne
diseases, the majority of these noted diarrhea (81 percent), Hepatitis A and Hepatitis E (61
percent), and typhoid (51 percent) in their communities, followed by gastroenteritis (25
percent), dysentery (19 percent), worm infections (18 percent), and cholera (3 percent).
• The majority of survey respondents (73 percent) did not cite any specific age group that was
most affected by water-related diseases, but of those that cited an age group (16 percent)
they noted that children under five years of age were most affected.

November, 2013 93
• Despite the high prevalence of water-related diseases cited by survey respondents (84
percent), the large majority of respondents do not treat the water that they drink; only 9
percent do treat their water, and 7 percent were unsure.
6.3 SOLID WASTE, SANITATION, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Nearly half of the focus groups cited wastewater as the primary cause of bad odors,
mosquitos, and diseases in communities
• The majority of all focus groups’ households reported that they do not connect to any
sanitation system, although almost twice as many urban communities report having a
sanitation system. Furthermore, 100 percent of the focus group participants reported using
open drains to dispose their wastewater, while a few communities also use irrigation channels
and fields to dispose of wastewater.
• In the majority of the areas (53 percent) where the survey respondents live, the wastewater
pipe from the bathrooms is connected to open drains, while only 19 percent report that these
pipes are connected to a sewerage system and 15 percent report that they are connected to a
septic tank or open drain.
• On average, households survey report having 1.87 latrines per household. Most survey
respondents (42 percent) have one latrine in their household; 32 percent report two, 11
percent report three latrines, and 7 percent have four latrines or more. The majority of
households surveyed (79 percent) considers the condition of the latrines in their houses as
“pakka,” or in good condition, while 13 percent says their latrines are “kaccha,” or in poor
condition. Over half (51 percent) of the sample has latrines with flushing tanks, 35 percent
have toilets without flushing tanks, and 4 percent have pit toilets.
All (except one) focus group reported their dissatisfaction with their current drainage system
and have noticed standing water in their streets when it rains
• The majority of rural communities that participated in focus group discussions report having
flooding issues on streets and low-level areas, and approximately half of the urban
communities also have this concern with some located in generally flood-stricken areas. Forty
five percent of survey respondents have frequently faced outdoor drainage problems within
the past six months in ordinary weather conditions, while 31 percent only sometimes faces
these problems, and only 12 percent never do.
• Focus groups (92 percent) reported that the drains found in these communities are
predominantly combined and open with a select few (mostly urban) that are combined and
covered (7 percent). On average, 76 percent of these communities’ drains are cemented,
although 86 percent of focus groups reported that drains are cemented in contrast with 61
percent in rural areas with cemented drains.
• Solid waste dumping is cited by survey respondents as the most common reason for poor
drainage problems (77 percent), but poor maintenance (61 percent) and poor construction
(58 percent) were also mentioned by more than half the sample.
The most common problem reported by communities was the clogging of sewers and drains
with plastic bags and solid waste which causes overflowing during dry season
• Community members report that they are facing shortage of locations for their disposal mof
solid waste. Most focus groups report that urban and rural community members dump their
solid waste in the streets and on roadsides, although some urban communities also use solid
waste dumping sites. Women focus groups specifically report that irrigation channels and
canals are also used for dumping solid waste; specifically, in Daag, the District Council is
dumping solid waste on the Budhni Nala banks, and five women focus groups (Daag, Khazana,
Pakha Ghulam, Palosi, and Wadpaga) also mentioned that children dump solid waste onto
fields and open plots, leading to abuse by the fields’ owner.

November, 2013 94
• On average, men and women in focus groups estimate that 43 percent of solid waste
produced in these households is organic while 57 percent is inorganic.
• In focus groups women estimated a higher amount of solid waste than did men, which may be
due to women being primarily responsible for disposal of solid waste and having better
knowledge of the amount and location of solid waste dumping.
• Only in 6 percent of the men and women focus groups households understand how to
dispose of solid waste.
• About half of the respondents say there is a committee responsible for collection of solid
waste in the area (49 percent), while the other half (43 percent) say there is not a committee.
• Almost half (46 percent) of all survey respondents throw their solid waste on open heaps to
await pick-up, 26 percent throw waste into the streets, and 13 percent carry away by hand
cart. In those districts with no committee, the majority (66 percent) of respondents said that
solid waste is disposed by simply thrown onto an open heap, while 5 percent put waste into
Khuwad, or natural ditches or storm drains, 4 percent used waste for agriculture, 3 percent
flushed away waste by rainwater, and 18 percent had no comment. Almost half (42 percent)
of households, stated that the area has been arranged for people to throw their waste into
open heaps, while 36 percent state there is no arrangement. The remaining 13 percent have
containers in their neighborhoods where they can dispose waste.
Women and impoverished households store, collect, and sell as a form of income-generation
• About 30 percent of households surveyed store recyclables at home and sell them for income.
Most respondents (70 percent) sell all types of recyclables, including paper, plastic, glass, and
metals, while 8 percent only sells metals. However, most households (98 percent) are unsure
about the quantity of recyclable their family sells each month in kilograms.
• Out of these households that sell recyclables, 44 percent have a family member that sells
recyclables for income. In the majority (72 percent) of the households, the adult woman sells
the recyclables; in 16 percent of households the adult man sells them, 3 percent a girl child
under the age of 15 does this job, and in 4 percent a boy child under the age of 15 does it. In
the majority cases, buyers come to the doorstep to buy recyclable (80 percent) rather than
household members taking recyclables to a buyer (8 percent).
• On average, these households earn 41.6 Rs. per month by selling recyclables. Most households
(47 percent) earn less than 50 Rs, seven percent make above 50 Rs., and the highest amount
made is 300 Rs, which 46 percent unsure about how much they earn.
• Five households collect recyclables from places other than their home to earn money. In most
of these households (four) the adult man collects the recyclables, while the adult woman
collects them in one instance. Sixty percent of these households collect recyclables from
household dump sites, and 80 percent collect metal. About the income, one HH reported that
it collects 110 kg per month and receives 5,000 Rs. for it. Forty percent uses this income for
medicine, food, health care, education, and clothing; the remaining 60% are unsure. Only one
household reports having sickness and allergies as a direct result of engaging in collection of
recyclables for income.
6.4 INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT
6.4.1 Service and Repairs

Community members are dissatisfied with the water and sanitation services, which are poor
or completely lacking across urban and rural areas of the study area
• Most survey respondents (64 percent) cited the Municipal Corporation Peshawar (MCP) as
the operating municipality organization; five percent cite the Peshawar Development
Authority (PDA), and 19 percent cite no municipality organization that is operating in their
area, while 12 percent are unsure. Although a quarter of respondents know of the municipal

November, 2013 95
services that are provided in their respective areas, most of the sample (65 percent) is
unaware of them. Out of those that are aware, water supply (95 percent), solid waste (95
percent), and sanitation and drainage (86 percent) services are those that are cited as being
provided, followed by street lighting (51 percent), and fumigation services (38 percent).
• However, few respondents believe that the municipality actually provides water supply (16
percent), solid waste (13 percent), sanitation and drainage (9 percent), street lighting (5
percent), and fumigation (3 percent) services consistently. Few of the survey respondents are
satisfied with the street lighting (4 percent) and fumigation (5 percent) systems. Although the
proportions are higher, very few respondents are happy with the sanitation and drainage (8
percent), solid waste (9 percent), and water supply (12 percent) systems. Overall, the majority
(92 percent) of all focus groups reported dissatisfaction with the services of their respective
water and sanitation departments.
• The majority of men and women urban focus groups reported that communities obtained
sanitation and water services from the TMA, which is no longer in operation, while the
majority of rural focus groups receive services from the District Council; 10 percent of urban
focus groups reported receiving services from the PDA and Cantonment Board-1. However,
13 percent of urban and 19 percent of rural focus groups reported that they do not have any
type of water and sanitation department. In 42 urban UCs, the Municipal Council provides
utilities but in the rural areas the District Council is only responsible for providing drains and
street pavement. In certain cases PHED installed tube wells on demand of the area and O&M
was handed over to the community committee.
• In 65 percent of the 17 UCs where both men and women focus groups were conducted men
identified an existing water and sanitation department while women expressed their
ignorance, which may reflect the lack of involvement and education of women currently in the
management of water and sanitation in these areas.
• The vast majority of survey respondents (70 percent) were unsure of a proper routine or
schedule for cleaning of the drainage system in their area and a similar amount of street
cleaning/ sweeping (77 percent). The majority (93 percent) of focus groups said that individual
community members care for the disposal of waste without the help of outside agencies. A
small portion (9 percent) reported that their drains are cleaned by either the Cantonment
Board-1 or TMA, which no longer exists. For the majority of rural focus groups, it takes about
5-7 days to clear the water stagnancy. It varies more for urban communities, between 2-3
days which in certain cases extend up to 2-3 weeks.
• In four women focus groups (Dehe Bahadar, Hazar Khwani, Pawaka, and Tehkal Bala)
mentioned that mostly women clean the drains near their homes, indicating a potential time
burden specific to women; in all of these four communities, it takes about 2-3 weeks to clear
the drains.
• 25 percent of focus groups in urban areas said some agency (Cantonment Board, TMA,
“sanitary staff”) collects solid waste. Only 8 percent of the focus groups expressed that TMA
is directing the communities to dispose the solid waste in specified solid waste dumps;
otherwise, there is no instruction from a government entity as reported.
Municipal services or committees are reported to be ineffective
• Over half (55 percent) of survey respondents reported that water is managed by a committee,
while 36 percent said that it is not, and 8 percent did not know.
• While 69 percent of survey respondents are unsure, only 1 percent of the respondents are
actually aware of an operation and maintenance (O&M) committee and 28 percent are
unaware. Of those that are aware of this committee, less than half (48 percent) think that
operation and maintenance is being done regularly on water, sanitation, and drainage utilities,
36 percent do not believe that any operation and maintenance is being done, and 16 percent
are unsure. Sixty percent of these respondents also said that the last operation and

November, 2013 96
maintenance duties related to water, sanitation, or drainage utilities were performed in 2012,
4 percent said they were performed in 2011, and 36 percent had no comment.
• On average, excluding one outlier, each focus group has 1.26 Citizen Community Boards
(CCBs). The average is lower for urban areas (1.08) than it is for rural areas (1.54). Most
commonly, 60 percent of focus groups report having one CCB in their community, while 15
percent have none, which is the second most common answer. There is one focus group,
Khalisa (men),that reported its community has 18 CCBs. In 82 percent of focus groups that
have them, CCBs have not initiated any schemes. However, projects have been implemented
in some: street pavement (6 focus groups), drain and/or culvert construction (5), health and
education (2), dowry to poor families (3), food distribution and conflict resolution (1), and
protection walls and medical camps (1).
• Only one percent of survey respondents said that women participate in committees; 51
percent reported that women do not and the remaining 49 percent were unsure. In seven of
the 17 focus groups (41 percent) with men and women representation, men perceived a
greater number of CCBs than women, and in three of the 17 (18 percent), women perceived
a greater number of CCBs than men. Every focus group said that no women participate in
CCBs because it is not acceptable for them to participate. This indicates a significant
constraint due to the clearly valuable contribution women have in terms of information,
knowledge, and solutions regarding water and sanitation in communities as end users and
those most often responsible for household water use, hygiene, and waste disposal.
The response time for repairs and customer services is unsatisfactory, poor, or non-existent in
the most part of the study area
• The majority (approximately 45 percent) of rural and urban communities participating in focus
groups report that it takes around four to five weeks to have a tube well repaired. However,
34 percent of urban communities are able to reportedly have their tube wells repaired in one
week or less, compared to 0 percent of rural communities, while 35 percent of rural
communities have no tube well in their UC. Three focus groups said that their tube wells
were all non-functioning.
• Seventy-two percent of focus groups (47 of the 65 focus groups) said that they have a tube
well operator while 11 percent said they did not. Of those that had a tube operator, urban
communities slightly leaned towards assessing the operator’s responsiveness as “prompt and
positive,” while rural communities almost unanimously (except Bazid Khel) determined that
they were “not satisfied.”.
• Only 4 percent of survey respondents knows how to file a complaint for municipal services,
while 25 percent report not knowing and 71 percent are unsure. Of those that do know how
to file complaints, 42 percent file complaints physically while 30 percent file them via
telephone, 5 percent file them via the internet, and 23 percent had no comment.
- Exactly half of these respondents believe that their complaints are not responded to in a
timely manner; 36 percent said that it takes over 24 hours, while only 14 percent
believe that they are responded to in a timely manner.
- The majority (54 percent) of survey respondents who know how to file complaints are
not satisfied with the complaint management system. Service locations such as a
complaint office or customer service center are reachable for only 22 percent of this
part of the sample, are out of reach for 38 percent, and 40 percent have no comment.
- The majority (58 percent) of these respondents considers the municipality's staff’s
response to queries and complaints poor, 15 percent believe it is satisfactory, 5 percent
think it is good, and no survey respondent suggested that it is very good.
- Similarly, exactly half of this segment of the sample believe that staff have a poor
knowledge of municipal water supply, sanitation, and solid waste management services,
16 percent consider them to have satisfactory knowledge, and 7 percent think that it is
good, while no survey respondent think it is very good.

November, 2013 97
- Many respondents (58 percent) think that the staff has poor efficiency when conducting
investigations about complaints, 14 percent believe that their efficiency is satisfactory, 7
percent consider it good, and no survey respondent believes that it is very good.
- In terms of the ability of staff to resolve problems with water and sanitation services
and billing issues, 50 percent consider the staff’s response to be poor, 15 percent think
it to be satisfactory, and 9 percent believe it to be good, while no one consider it very
good.
- Half (51 percent) of these respondents suggest that the service representatives show
poor levels of professionalism, 15 percent think that they portray satisfactory levels, 11
percent consider their professionalism to be “good,” and no survey respondent believes
it to be “very good”.
6.4.2 Paying for Services

Less than one-fifth of the households pay for municipal services
• Less than one-fifth (19 percent) of households currently pay for municipal services while 10
percent do not, and the remaining 70 percent are unsure.
- Out of those that pay for municipal services, over three quarters (77 percent) receive
the bill semiannually. Twelve percent get it quarterly, and 6 percent is getting it
monthly.
- Almost half of these respondents (47 percent) pay between 101 and 200 Rs. each
month for municipal services. One-third (34 percent) pay over 300 Rs., while only 11
percent pay between 201 and 300 Rs monthly. Only 1 percent pays less than 100 Rs.,
and 6 percent is unsure. This likely reflects that only the relatively wealthiest
households are able to afford paying for municipal services.
- The majority of those that pay for municipal services (82 percent) receive the bill on
time, while 7 percent do not and 11 percent are unsure.
- While 70 percent have no comment, a quarter of these respondents suggest that the
bill is personally delivered to their door in order to receive it in a timely fashion.
- Over 99 percent did not comment regarding accuracy of billing service.
- Most commonly payment is paid directly to the operator (28 percent), although 14
percent of respondents pay at the service provider’s office (the Cantt. Board Municipal
Corporation, PDA or PHED), 6 percent pay at the bank, and 52 percent had no
comment.
• A quarter of survey respondents reported that they contribute a set fee to the maintenance
of the water source, while 7 percent do not contribute anything and 68 percent did not
comment.
• Where there was a water bill to be paid, men and women focus group members report that
men are responsible for paying the bill 100 percent of the time.
No service exists to assist households in paying water bills, which disproportionately affects
impoverished households, widowed women, and minority populations such as refugees. Many
poor families are able to afford very little to nothing for connection fees or water service
• Sixteen women focus groups (15 urban, one rural) reported that the less fortunate would not
be able to afford any kind of water bill, while the remaining estimated that the poor could afford
125 PKR on average per month. The focus groups were unanimously in agreement that the
poor and widowed had the most difficulty affording their water bills, some adding that the
“socially deprived” who “do not have a regular source of income” also struggle to pay for
water.
• Of the 51 focus groups to which it applies, all reported that households pay their own water
bills and there is otherwise no community fund which assists them in paying bills at the

November, 2013 98
individual level. The majority of urban households pay for their own water (an average of 135
PKR per month, ranging from 75 PKR to 300 PKR).
• Focus group participants reported that for rural communities the majority (48 percent) of
households would be willing and able to pay around 100-150 PKR per month for regular
quality access to safe drinking water, while about a quarter of households (24 percent) would
be willing and able to pay 150-200 PKR and another quarter (24 percent) 200-300 PKR per
month. While focus group participants reported a higher percentage of urban households
able to pay 200-300 PKR monthly (38 percent), there were also a larger number of
households in urban areas that would reportedly be unable to pay more than 100 PKR per
month (24 percent), while 36 percent would be able and willing to pay between 100- 200 PKR
monthly.
Mistrust on government and dissatisfaction on services provided resulting in non-payment of
bills, creation of a vicious cycle of poor, poor O&M and lack of sustainability
• Many focus group participants shared that they have little to no trust in the government that
they will provide needed services, but would be willing to pay 100-200 PKR per month if they
were provided with safe drinking water by the government; however, many people shared
that they are not willing to fix water meters in their homes.
• About 96 percent respondents were unsure about the price of water: 2 percent said that it is
reasonable, 1 percent consider it too much while another I percent consider it too little.
• The main issue in Tehkal Bala is a political conflict between two parties. Because of this, these
two parties are not allowed each other to solve the community’s ills.
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MASTER PLAN
6.5.1 Water Supply

• Direct water supply to each home appears to be the safest (least contaminated) source of
water according to community members and is overwhelmingly the most preferred option for
water sources by community members.
• If specific areas in the project area may not benefit from direct water supplies to homes, these
communities will benefit from properly dug and maintained wells and bore holes drawing from
clean water sources.
- Assist some communities to dig deeper wells (or provide alternative) to access safe
drinking water sources, particularly in communities such as Khazana, Pakha Ghulam, and
Wadpaga where focus group participants reported that these communities cannot pay
to dig well past 6-9 meters, and are therefore accessing only contaminated water.
- Public/community water sources need to involve communities to ensure their needs
and understand challenges faced by populations especially women.
• It should not be expected that households will pay more than 100-200 PKR per month for
access to safe drinking water (particularly in rural areas); 50% of the population may be able to
afford 100-150 PKR monthly for regular water service, a very small portion (approximately
10-15% of the urban population) may be able to pay 200-300 PKR per month or more for
municipal services, including water and sanitation.
• It should be anticipated that roughly 25- 50% of the population in the service area will not be
able to afford any amount of money to pay for any connections or ongoing service or O&M
fees. The more poor and marginalized, such as widows, minorities, and communities affected
by the 2010 flooding are among this population; a full subsidy plan will need to be considered
to poor families to access water and sanitation services.
• Many households do not wish to have and will reject an individual water meter placed in their
household largely due to inability to pay and mistrust of the government; alternatives to water

November, 2013 99
meters should be investigated, along with subsidies for the poor and building trust with the
government and services.
6.5.2 Drainage and Sanitation

• The most marginalized poor communities with little to no access to water and sanitation
should be prioritized for receiving infrastructure and services.
• Build underground/ closed drainage and sewer system to minimize solid waste, etc. entering/
clogging the sewage system (64 percent of community members are in favor of this); identify
points of sewage intrusion into water sources and repair/ divert. Priority should be given to
areas where there are homes in low-level areas prone to flooding.
• Sanitation solutions will need to consider issues of households without space for septic tanks
and current attachments from latrines to drains (e.g. community septic disposal and alternative
energy use of waste).
• Since over half of the waste is reported to be organic matter, implement a composting/
alternative organic waste (e.g. energy) program in communities to generate energy with waste
for power, agriculture use, etc.
6.5.3 Solid Waste Management

• There is a very strong preference of community members for solid waste collection by hand
carts or cycle rickshaws with a ringing bell to pick waste from large dustbins placed on each
street and/or small dustbins on household’s individual door steps; this will increase uptake of
proper waste disposal by community members, such as women, primarily responsible for
waste disposable but with limited mobility.
- It is important to note that community members are overwhelming only accepting of
placement of a container near their homes if it is emptied very frequently (e.g. daily).
• Although income earned from collecting, storing, and selling recyclables is minimal, nearly one-
third of families are engaged in this and provides a small source of income for many women.
Further, a small amount of families appear to depend on income generated from collecting and
selling recyclables as a major source of income to provide food, clothing, medicine, and
education for their families. As such, it will be important for any recycling schemes included in
the sanitation program to:
- Target individuals and households engaged in the informal income - generation for job
opportunities for ongoing sanitation services to replace the potential income loss.
- Create income-incentivizing recycling programs for households, targeting women
household members.
6.5.4 Institutional Strengthening

• Significant investment is required in institutional strengthening and capacity building for those
individuals, organizations, and institutions responsible for the operation and maintenance of
the system, particularly in rural areas. Without this any infrastructure built will be
unsustainable.
- Positive communication and trust needs to be built, repaired, and established between
government service providers and community members. This will be essential to
establish community buy-in to the system and will to pay for bills, generate interest and
community ownership, and facilitate improved relationship between the government
and people for the sustainability of the system.
• Although it is not practical to assume that community members at this point will trust any
services delivered, maintained, or serviced by a government entity, it is important to begin
strengthening municipal services specifically to:

November, 2013 100
- Create formal department to solve problems and address complaints and grievances
properly to improve ongoing service delivery.
- Streamline and coordinate regular and efficient solid waste collection services with
incentives and alternative use of waste.
- Invest in community liaisons to work closely with village/ community committees on
water and sanitation management.
- Clean and clear drains quickly and efficiently.
• Regular O&M should be local and community-based and managed to increase accountability,
ownership, and trust of the system.
- Support, in collaboration with CBOs and NGOs, the formation of village-level
committees to assist in operation, maintenance, and service of water and sanitation
services to households. This is a key component to ensure functionality and
sustainability of the infrastructure built.
- Invest in leadership training and community support of women community members to
be active leaders on separate women village committees to ensure all problems and
solutions are identified and addressed by end-users in the operation of the
infrastructure, as well as to maximize community awareness efforts in the education
component to improving hygiene and sanitation in the areas.
- Consider that Citizen Community Boards (CCBs) exist in most communities and may
be a useful platform on which to build village committees to engage in water and
sanitation operation and maintenance decisions on an ongoing basis. However, since
only men participate on CCBs and it is not appropriate or acceptable for women to
participate with men on the CCBs, it will not be sufficient to empower women as
leaders and decision-makers in the community to ensure that their voices are heard, to
ensure sustainability of the infrastructure, and maximize desired health and safety
outcomes by ensuring all end users are well-targeted for information and education
campaigns. This indicates a significant constraint due to the clearly valuable
contribution women have in terms of information, knowledge, and solutions regarding
water and sanitation in communities as end users and those often responsible for
household water use, hygiene, and waste disposal.
6.5.5 Education, Knowledge and System Sustainability

• Awareness and incentives/ disincentives (including law enforcement) needs to be implemented
for businesses contaminating water such as the Bdhni Nala crossing in Daag and the leather
and carpet industries in Khalisa that pump chemicals directly into water sources.
- Private businesses that influence water quality and contamination should be engaged as
part of local water/ sanitation boards/ committees to increase accountability to
communities.
• Ongoing education/ awareness campaigns should be implemented within the community by

community water/ sanitation boards/ committees in partnership with local CBOs/ NGOs
(where they exist) and targeting all community members, and particularly women and girls
who are often responsible for cooking, cleaning, waste disposal, and family hygiene focusing
on:
- How to determine the quality / safe vs. unsafe drinking water.
- How to treat and handle drinking water.
- Proper storage of water.
- Proper disposal of solid waste.
- Proper disposal of organic matter/ how to compost/ reuse organic matter.

November, 2013 101
- Knowledge of, publicity of, and exemplification of enforcement of laws and policies
regarding water, sanitation, and solid waste.
- The importance of women/ girls as decision-makers and participants in community-
based water/ sanitation infrastructure and management solutions.
• Implementation of a public awareness/ effort to increase the use of reusable shopping bags and
decrease the use of plastic shopping bags, including provision of incentives/ provision of cloth
bags to businesses and individuals (52 percent of community members are in favor of this).
Provision of designated containers/ locations for recycling of plastic bags.

November, 2013 102
USAID-FUNDED PESHAWAR MASTER PLANNING PROJECT
Planning and Engineering Services for Master Plan in Peshawar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa:
Drinking Water, Sanitation/Storm Water and Solid Waste Services
ADDRESS: House No: 15D/A-1, Circular Road, University Town, Peshawar
Tel/Fax: 091-5852300
Email: cop.msp@ndcpak.com
********************

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria Deliverable#15

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria Deliverable#15

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3333333333333333333333333333

USAID-Funded Municipal Services Program

National Development Consultants (Pvt.) Limited, Pakistan.

MWH Global, Inc. USA.

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Engineering Design Criteria # 15

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Mistrust on government and dissatisfaction on services provided resulting in non-payment of bills,

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES

 Deliverable 10 – Review of Existing Reports on Drinking Water, Sanitation/Stormwater and

In Deliverable 10 (submitted to USAID in April 2013), NDC provided a comprehensive review of

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

1.3 OVERVIEW OF MASTER PLAN CRITERIA

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This main report is developed according to the following seven sections:

Section 1.0 - Introduction

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

2.2 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF THE PESHAWAR DISTRICT

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

2.4 AREAS OF 21 RURAL UCs FULLY OR PARTIALLY INCLUDED IN

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

2.5 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE YEAR 2032

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Rural 21 487,167 33.14 992,102 33.14 1,211,500 33.14

Total 1,469,983 100 29,993,579 100 3,655,593 100

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

The Walled City and Public Sector Housing Schemes

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

Private Sector Housing Scheme

2 Al-Masa Moseley Town Warsak Road 13-8-2009 0.2029

4 Shaheen Housing Complex Warsak Road 21-9-2010 0.2454

5 Peshawar Garden Chamkni Chowk, GT Road 27-42009 0.0820

6 Saudi’s Garden Tehkal Payan, Kanal Road 27-4-2009 0.0324

Master Plan Design Engineering Criteria # 15

7 Sheikh Yaseen Nasir Bagh Road 09-6-2010 0.6118

8 Khyber Garden Yaseen Abad Un Approved

9 Hira Town Inqilab Road, Chamkani Un Approved

10 Tariq Town (Bacha Town) Larama Road Un Approved

11 Officer Garden Babo Garhi, Warsak Road Un Approved

12 Akbar Model Town Budhni Road Un Approved

13 Galaxy Town Ring Road Un Approved

14 Hayat Garden Dalazak Road Un Approved

15 Sadat Model Town Budhni Un Approved

16 Alnemra Garden Rano Garhi Un Approved

17 Golden Gate City Jhaghra Un Approved

18 New City Home GT Road Un Approved

19 University Model Town Nasir Bagh Un Approved

20 Aziz Town Warsak Road Un Approved

21 Haji Kahn Town Pajjagi Road Un Approved