5. Results of field assessment
5.4. Sanitary risk factors
In accordance with the RADWQ methodology, each water sample was complemented by a sanitary inspection.
Sanitary inspection is the basic approach, consistently supported by WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (WHO 1997; 2004; 2011) and the US Environment Protection Agency (US EPA 1999). Sanitary inspection is a powerful fact-finding activity. It uses on-site observation to systematically identify, evaluate and record conditions, infrastructures and practices in relation to likely risks and possible pollution problems that may threaten drinking-water quality at the source, point of abstraction, treatment works, storage and distribution. As sanitary inspection aims at identifying risks – which is also a component of water safety plans – its use is particularly important for management and control of water sources locally.
Risk factors that can be identified by means of sanitary inspection can be grouped into three categories:
• Hazard factors are potential sources of faeces, which threaten water supplies, e.g. proximity of water sources to toilets, animal keeping, landfills and manure collection places.
• Pathway factors are unsatisfactory technical and hygienic condition due to which contaminants may get into water, including pipe damages, illegal connections, discontinuity, unprotected open
reservoirs, wells without cover, faulty and eroded masonry and backfill area protecting springs, water extraction with violation of hygienic norms, incorrect storage of drinking-water.
• Indirect factors are disturbed sanitary protection zones or their absence, access of animals to water supply source or improper maintenance.
In many locations of both districts water treatment and disinfection facilities are not in place in small water supply systems. Also, routine monitoring of drinking-water quality in small scale water supply systems is not
drinking-water. Therefore, sanitary inspection is particularly useful to identify prevailing risks and possible pollution problems.
In the assessment, standardized sanitary inspection forms (see Annex) were used. They contain a systematic checklist of 10 specific questions, which can be answered by the assessor using a mixture of visual
observation and user interview on-site. For the purposes of the assessment, 6 different sanitary inspection forms were employed (see Annex and Tables 23-27).
The results of sanitary inspections in both districts and the frequency of individual risk factors identified during the inspections are provided in Tables 23-27. As shown in sections 5.1 and 5.3, microbial
contamination is clearly present in many small water supply systems. Results of sanitary inspections point to relevant risk factors for microbial pollution, including unsatisfactory sanitary and technical conditions (i.e.
pipe damages, unprotected and open reservoirs, wells without covers, faulty masonry of springs), absence of sanitary protection zones (i.e. allowing access of animals to water supply sources) and/or inadequate location for water extraction in relation to pollution sources in the vicinity of the abstraction point (i.e. toilets and solid wastes).
Table 23. Results of sanitary inspection for piped water distribution system
Piped water distribution system Frequency (%)
Dusheti Marneuli
1 Do any taps or pipes leak at the sample site? 36.4 47.8
2 Does water collect around the sample site? 18.2 26.1
3 Is the area around the tap insanitary? 9.1 13.0
4 Is there a sewer or latrine within 30 m of any tap? 0.0 0.0
5 Has there been discontinuity in the last 10 days? 27.3 21.7
6 Is the supply main pipeline exposed in the sampling area? 0.0 17.4
7 Do users report any pipe breaks within the last week? 0.0 4.3
8 Is the supply tank cracked or leaking? 45.5 73.9
9 Are the vents on the tank damaged or open? 9.1 43.5
10 Is the inspection cover or concrete around the cover damaged or corroded? 0.0 87.0
Table 24. Results of sanitary inspection for household piped water
Household piped water
Frequency (%) Dusheti Marneuli
1 Is the tap sited outside the house (e.g. in the yard)? 89.5 92.1
2 Is the water stored in a container inside the house? 0.0 4.8
3 Is the storage tank or any of the taps leaking or damaged? 21.1 27.0
4 Are any taps shared with other households? 52.6 57.1
5 Is the area around the tank or tap insanitary? 21.1 36.5
6 Are there any leaks in the household pipes? 5.3 11.1
7 Do animals have access to the area around the pipe? 57.9 85.7
8 Have users reported pipe breaks in the last week? 0.0 4.8
9 Has there been discontinuity in water supply in the last 10 days? 26.3 50.8
10 Is the water obtained from more than one source? 0.0 0.0
Table 25. Results of sanitary inspection for dug wells
Dug wells
Frequency (%) Dusheti Marneuli
1 Is there a latrine within 10 m of the well? 0.0 12.7
2 Is the nearest latrine uphill of the well? 0.0 6.3
3 Is there any source of other pollution within 10 m of the well (e.g. animal breeding, cultivation, roads, industry etc.)?
0.0 85.7
4 Is the drainage absent or faulty allowing ponding within 3 m of the well? 0.0 20.6 5 Is the drainage channel absent or cracked, broken or in need of cleaning? 25.0 38.1 6 Is the cement or slab less than 2 m in diameter around the top of the well? 0.0 81.0
7 Does spilt water collect in the apron area? 0.0 38.1
8 Are there cracks in the cement floor or slab? 50.0 36.5
9 Is the handpump loose at the point of attachment, or for rope-washer pumps, is the pump cover missing?
0.0 11.1
10 Is the well-cover absent or insanitary? 0.0 15.9
Table 26. Results of sanitary inspection for springs
Springs
Frequency (%) Dusheti Marneuli
1 Is the collection or spring box absent or faulty? 6.3 25.0
2 Is the masonry or backfill area protecting the spring faulty or eroded? 25.0 25.0 3 If there is a spring box, is there an unsanitary inspection cover or air vent? 12.5 0.0 4 Does spilt water flood the collection area (e.g. from overflow pipe)? 31.3 0.0
5 Is the fence absent or faulty? 93.8 75.0
6 Can animals have access within 10 m of the spring? 87.5 100.0
7 Is there a latrine uphill and/or within 30 m of the spring? 6.3 0.0 8 Does surface water collect uphill of the spring within 30 m? 0.0 0.0 9 Is the diversion ditch above the spring absent or non-functional? 0.0 25.0 10 Are there any other sources of pollution uphill of the spring (e.g. faeces or solid
waste)?
25.0 0.0
Table 27. Results of sanitary inspection for boreholes with mechanized pumping
Boreholes with mechanized pumping Frequency (%)
Dusheti Marneuli 1 Is there a latrine or sewer within 100 m of the pumping mechanism? - 3.2
2 Is there a latrine within 10 m of the borehole? - 3.2
3 Is there any source of other pollution within 50 m of the borehole (e.g. animal breeding, cultivation, roads, industry etc.)?
- 12.9
4 Is there an uncapped well within 100 m? - 0.0
5 Is the drainage channel absent or cracked, broken or in need of cleaning? - 9.7
6 Can animals come within 50 m of the borehole? - 9.7
7 Is the base of the pumping mechanism permeable to water? - 6.5
8 Is there any stagnant water within 2 m of the pumping mechanism? - 3.2
9 Is the well seal insanitary? - 12.9
10 Is the borehole cap cracked? - 12.9