4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

Conventional on-site sanitation

Lecturer: Mariska Ronteltap

m.ronteltap@unesco-ihe.org

Part A Overview
Part B Description of commonly used low-cost on-site
excreta management systems
Part C Comparison with UDD toilet

To be really precise, this presentation is about Conventional low-cost

excreta management systems

4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

Course 2 Unit 2
Part A: Overview

Clarification of terms:
Latrine is used interchangeably with the term toilet
toilet
Pit = Hole in the ground (not water tight)
Vault = Container above ground (water tight)

What do we mean by conventional and onOn-site means:

site?
Conventional means here:

Currently widely known and used

Accepted by decision makers as a
potential option
Usually it still often means little
consideration for sustainability
(unfortunately)
UDD toilets could become part of
conventional options in the future
(this would be a good thing!)

Not connected to sewer

Treated at the site where people
live
but this is not always strictly
true e.g.
true,
e g septic tanks
eventually need removal of
faecal sludge to a centralised
treatment plant
Decentralised is often used
interchangeably with on-site
The opposite of on-site is called:
off-site; or
centralised systems; or
sewer-based sanitation (the
only
y other alternative could be
to tanker the wastewater
away)

4/9/2009

Reasons for having on-site sanitation

systems rather than a sewer system

To save construction and maintenance costs

Because people cannot afford a connection to a sewer

Many municipalities cannot afford construction and maintenance of an
expensive sewer system and a wastewater treatment plant
M i i liti face
Municipalities
f
huge
h
costs
t to
t rehabilitate
h bilit t aging
i sewer iinfrastructure
f t t
older than 150 years (e.g. in Germany, UK)

To save water (or because water is scarce or not reliably available);

however, not all on-site sanitation systems have low water use (e.g.
septic tanks)
To serve remote locations (long distances)
e.g. in Australia and in the US (in the US 50% of new houses use on-site
sanitation - I heard this at the conference in Aachen in 2007 but have no
exact reference for this figure)

Because housing is only temporary or illegal (slums, refugee camps)

Because it is more flexible with respect to population growth and decline
Because people prefer not to mix excreta with water in order to make
containment of pathogens easier (in the case of a waterless on-site
sanitation system)

Can you think of other reasons?

Reminder: Sanitation consists of 4 components

1. Excreta management
Many people think of only excreta
management when they talk
about sanitation
2. Greywater management
Most often just dumped into the
street or gutter (mixing with
rainwater, soil infiltration)
Less critical from public health point
of view compared to item 1 but
still needs consideration
3. Solid waste management
4. Rainwater drainage
The remainder of this presentation will deal
with low-cost excreta management
Greywater = wastewater from kitchen, bath/shower, sinks, laundry (minimal excreta content) See
Course 2 Unit 1 for greywater treatment aspects

4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

On-site sanitation is quite easy if

Population density is low
(e.g. rural areas)

or costs are not important

But big problems for:

High population density
and low income
(peri-urban areas,
slums)

this is the
focus of this
lecture: lowcost on-site
sanitation in
urban areas

My rules of thumb:
Low density: < 100 people/ha
Peri-urban areas: 100 240 people/ha (e.g. Lusaka, Zambia case)
Slums: > 800 people/ha (e.g. Dhaka, Bangladesh)
1 ha = 10,000 m2 = 0.01 km2 (1 soccer field = 0.7 ha)
What is the population density in your city?

Course 2 Unit 2

Conventional low-cost excreta management methods (in

approximate order of increasing system cost)
Excreta disposal method

Open defecation

Needs faecal
sludge mgmt.?

Can accept
greywater?

Human dignity

Public health
risk

No

No

Very low

Very high
Very high

Flying toilet

No

No

Very low

Bucket latrine

Yes

No

Low

High

Simple pit latrine

Yes

No

Can be OK

Medium

Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine

Yes

No

OK

Low

No but faecal
matter collection

No

OK

Low

Pour-flush latrine with pit, aqua privy

Yes

No

OK

Low

Water-flush or pour-flush toilet with

septic tank

Yes

Yes

OK

Low

Water-flush toilet with holding tanks /

cess pits

Yes

Yes

OK

Low

Urine-diversion dehydrating toilet*

* Not (yet) conventional but included for comparison

More about costs: see Course 4 Unit 1 Financial aspects

4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

Course 2 Unit 2
Part B: Description of commonly used low-cost on-site
excreta management systems

(this part is excluding UDD toilets; UDD toilets are covered in detail
in Part C)

Commonly-used on-site excreta management

systems described in Part B

1 Open defecation
1.
2. Flying toilet
3. Bucket latrine

Remember: these are not

counted as basic/improved
sanitation in the MDGs

4. Simple pit latrine

5. Ventilated improved pit latrine
6. Pour-flush latrine with pit or septic tank
7. Aqua privy with septic tank
8. Water-flush toilet with septic tank
9. Water-flush toilet with holding tanks / cess pits

These can be counted

as basic/improved
sanitation in the
MDGs if no open pit
but pit with slab,
not shared,
shared not
public toilet and
adequate treatment
of faecal sludge
(see Course 1 Unit 1
Part C on MDGs)

UDD toilets are not (yet) commonly used so they are not listed in this table
here, but described in detail in Part C

4/9/2009

1. Open defecation
About 2.4 billion people have no
access to basic sanitation
(WHO/UNICEF, 2006) and
many of these use open
defecation (or bucket latrines,
flying toilets)
Great public health risks unless
population density is very low
Rain events flush faeces into
receiving water bodies
Example: Diarrhoea incidences
increase during rainy season in
peri-urban areas in Lusaka,
Zambia

Open drain used as public toilet in Ouagadougou,

Burkina Faso (Oct. 06)

2. Flying toilet
Defecate into plastic bags
and throw these away
Main problems:
Little human dignity and
comfort for the user
Plastic bags can block open
drains
Plastic bags can break and
spill their content animals
and children can get in
contact with fresh faeces

3 Bucket latrine
3.
Defecate and urinate into a
bucket which is regularly
emptied manually
http://www.millenniumark.net/News_Files/NBC/shelter.in.place.html

4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

What does faecal sludge from bucket latrines

look like?
A worker in Kumasi
(Ghana) is
transferring faecal
sludge from a
manhole, which is
used to store faecal
sludge from bucket
latrines, to a bucket
and then to a
transport vehicle
(Source: Vodounhessi
(2006))
Note the lack of boots (but
he does wear gloves which
is good)

Faecal sludge

4. Simple pit latrine

User urinates and defecates into a toilet
placed over a hole (pit) in the ground
Pit depth: 2 m or more, covered with
latrine slab
Diameter of pit: 1 1.5 m (round or
square)
The hole may be lined around the top to
prevent collapsing
The pit is designed so that the liquid pit
content seeps into the ground
Can be squatting (top photo) or sitting
(bottom photo)
Very common for:
Rural areas
Peri-urban areas, slums, schools
Emergency sanitation, refugee camps

Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

4/9/2009

(from Course 1 Unit 3)

Reminder: How can pit latrines affect the

groundwater?
Pit latrine

Groundwater
(clean)

Shallow
drinking water
well

Groundwater
(polluted)

Nitrate
Pathogens

Based on: Werner, Ch., Mang H.-P., Klingel, F. Bracken, P. (2004): General overview of ecosan.
PowerPoint-Presentation. Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
GmbH ecological sanitation programme.

Question: so why dont we build fully lined pit

latrines?
If a p
pit latrine was fully
y lined,, it would no longer
g be a p
pit latrine
but a holding tank
The pit would fill up very quickly with all the urine (remember:
about 1.5 L/cap/d of urine)
Pits are only lined at the top and perhaps the side to prevent
collapsing but never at the bottom

4/9/2009

5. Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Latrine

VIP latrine is the same as

simple pit latrine but has a
vent pipe and fly screen
(reduces odour and fly
b di )
breeding)
Toilet room and pit should be
dark to not attract flies
Some VIPs are built as a
double-pit structure (see next
slide)

Air flow

Superstructure

Fly
screen

Vent pipe

Substructure / pit:
Liquid seeps into the
ground
Pits are not water tight as
they would otherwise fill up
too quickly

liquid
(urine)

Source: Harvey et al. (2007)

Double Pit VIP Latrine

Pit in use
(drying)

Double pit improves

conditions for pit emptying
and potential for reuse
compared to single pit
Pits are alternated every 6
months or (better) every 12
months
th
But lack of faecal sludge
management and potential
for groundwater pollution are
still problems

Pit: Liquid seeps into the

ground (no separate urine
collection)

Source: http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/waterandsanitation/resources/pdf-files

4/9/2009

Pit latrines in peri-urban areas of Lusaka, Zambia

Raised pit latrine due to rocky

soil (note leaking on the side)
Source: Mayumbelo (2006)

More photos from pit

latrines in peri-urban
areas of Lusaka

Photos by Kennedy Mayumbelo

(Lusaka Water and Sewerage
Company) March 2007: The
Company),
The pit
latrine is being used by three
households, all on the same plot.
There are a total of 14 people
currently using it and it is leaking
very badly from the sides (problem of
construction). It is also full and the
users said they only use it because
they have no choice; as expected all
the three households are tenants and
the landlord lives elsewhere.

10

4/9/2009

Typical problems with pit

latrines in peri-urban areas

High odour levels

Fly breeding
Overflowing
C ll
Collapsing
i off pits
it
No space to dig new pits
Difficult to dig new pits if ground is
rocky
No systems to empty pits (lack of
faecal sludge management)
Pit latrines have to be outdoors
Pollution of groundwater which is
used
sed for drinking water
ater b
by using
sing
shallow wells (e.g. Lusaka, Zambia)
Pits are also used to dump rubbish

Have you ever used a pit latrine?

A collapsed pit latrine (photo by Linus Dagerskog, CREPA, taken in Ouagadougou,

Burkina Faso)
Linus said: the most disgusting thing I have ever seen; a bubbling sludge, flies
everywhere, and the house owner did not really know how to cover or fill it.

11

4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

A pit latrine where the hole is

in the process of collapsing
(seen in Maseru, capital of
Lesotho (
(a small country
y
inside of by South Africa),
December 2006)

Photo: E. v. Mnch

Despite their popularity:

pit latrines are actually not sustainable if

The groundwater table is shallow

Karst geology or ground that is underlain by pervious rock leading
to:
a rapid rate of groundwater movement
potential for groundwater contamination (in combination with shallow
wells being used as a water supply source)

Area has a potential for flooding

Soil type is rocky (hard to excavate)
No space to dig new pits or no means to empty full pits and to treat
faecal sludge
Population density is high
Situation has lack of security (since pit latrines have to be built in
some distance from the settlements)

12

4/9/2009

Pit emptying
After some months or years of use
(depending on the number of users
and the size of the pit), a pit latrine
p It then needs to be either
fills up.
abandoned or emptied.
Note: water needs to be added to
make faecal sludge from pit latrines
pumpable!
Methods for emptying:
Manual emptying with buckets
(extremely high health risks!)
Mechanised emptying with vacuum
tankers (see Course 2 Unit 3
Storage and transport logistics)

Vacuum tanker collecting

faecal sludge from septic tank

Course 2 Unit 2

Why are pit latrines so wide-spread in low

income areas?
Cheap and easy to construct and maintain
Drop-and-forget mentality
Can be appropriate solution if:
population density is low; and
soil conditions are suitable (not rocky, not sandy, easy to dig
but also stable); and
area not prone to flooding; and
groundwater table not shallow but rather deep; and
good general security (no harassment for women and
children at night)

13

4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

6. Pour-flush latrine with pit or septic tank

Pit under toilet

Pit offset from toilet

After defecation,
a few litres of
water must be
poured into the
bowl to flush the
excreta into the
pit or septic tank
Water acts as a
hygienic seal
(reducing odour
and flies)
(The toilets
squatting pan
could be modified
to include urine
diversion as a
first step towards
ecosan)

Source: Harvey et al. (2007)

7. Aqua Privy with septic tank

Simple latrine
constructed over a
septic tank
Tank must be
watertight to
maintain constant
liquid level in the
tank
Tank can receive
greywater
Nowadays less
common (I have
never seen one
have you?)

Source: Harvey et al. (2007)

14

4/9/2009

8. Water-flush toilet with

septic tank
Septic tanks:
Underground tanks, usually one per
household
Work
W k in
i conjunction
j
ti with
ith water-flush
t fl h
toilets
Combined settling, skimming and
anaerobic digestion
Solution for the wealthy in developing
countries (requires water for flushing)
Pre-treated, settled effluent usually
ground ((soakaway)
y)
infiltrated into g
Tanks need emptying Faecal
sludge management often lacking
For an ecosan concept, septic tanks
could be used just for greywater or
just for blackwater (urine, faeces and
small amount of water)
See Introduction to Anaerobic Treatment
(Course 2 Unit 4) and Conventional Faecal
Sludge Management (Course 2 Unit 7)

Underground septic tanks in Maseru,

Lesotho (Dec. 2006)

Septic tank effluent discharged to soakaway or small-bore sewer

(see Course 2 Unit 8 Small-bore sewer systems)

Source: http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/waterandsanitation/resources/pdf-files

15

4/9/2009

Typical problems with septic tanks (particularly, but

not only, in developing countries)
Effluent quality low and often not enough space for sustainable soil
infiltration
Tank
a is
su
undersized
de s ed ((little
tt e anaerobic
a ae ob c ttreatment
eat e t occurring)
occu g)
Population density has become too high capacity of soil to absorb
and treat liquid effluent is exceeded
Pollution of groundwater is possible (effluent soak-aways most common)

Tank may be leaking (faecal sludge is leaking out); maintenance is

neglected
Need regular emptying (typically every 5-10 years, depending on
size and number of users)
Faecal sludge is overflowing together with the effluent

Capacity for faecal sludge treatment lacking (resulting in illegal

dumping anywhere in the environment)
Relatively expensive (not affordable for the poor)
Need access roads for emptying trucks

Course 2 Unit 2

Do you have your own experiences with septic tanks

(e.g. at home or at work)?
How often is it emptied (faecal sludge removed)?
How do you know when to empty it?
What is the effluent quality of your septic tank like? Is it good?
How do you know?
Is it ever giving you odour problems?
Where is the faecal sludge taken to and how is it treated?
Such individual soil-based systems are difficult to monitor!

16

4/9/2009

9. Water-flush toilet with holding tank (also called cess pit or conservancy tank)

Needs watertight tank and

frequent emptying
Sometimes cess pits are
(illegally) converted into a
leaching pit by breaking
through the base of the
tank - so that the cesspit no
longer fills up!
This may be
convenient for the owner
but may lead to
groundwater pollution
In the US,
US the word
cesspool is used, but this
is not a water-tight tank but
allows infiltration

Source: http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/waterandsanitation/resources/pdf-files

Faecal sludge management (FSM)

The following on-site systems result in the production
of faecal sludge:
Household pit latrines, bucket latrines
Unsewered public toilets, e.g. aqua privies, pour flush, VIP,
cess pits
Septic tanks (households, institutions, hotels,)

Faecal Sludge Management = FS transport,

treatment, reuse
See separate lecture on FSM (Course 2 Unit 7
Some
handysludge
rules of
thumb:
Faecal
management)

Specific faecal sludge production (Heinss et al., 1998):

1.0 L/cap/day from septic tanks
0.2 L/cap/day from toilets without water use
Typical FS total solids content 25 g/L (Steiner et al.,
2002)

17

4/9/2009

Faecal sludge management overview

Proposed scenario
(need to add
water to
empty pit by
g
pumping)

Current situation
= Faecal sludge
crisis:

uncontrolled
disposal
illegal dumping
no beneficial
reuse

Closing
the loop

But how to deal

with liquid
effluent?

Course 2 Unit 2

Course 2 Unit 2
Part C: Comparison with UDD toilet
For cost comparisons see Course 4 Unit 1 (Financial aspects)
UDD toilet details are given in Course 1 Unit 3 and Course 1 Unit 4

18

4/9/2009

Example: Single vault urine-diversion dehydrating (UDD)

toilet
This type
yp of toilet is
often wrongly called
composting toilet or
ecosan toilet
Ecosan is not limited
to a specific
technology, hence
UDD toilets or other
toilet types could be
used in an ecosan
project
Removal of dried
material

(Double vault UDD

toilet would normally
have two vent pipes)

Source: http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/waterandsanitation/resources/pdf-files

Course 2 Unit 2

Advantages of a UDD toilet compared to a pit latrine

Can be indoors, because:
No pit required (the pit would normally allow liquid to seep into
the ground)
No odours (because urine and faeces are not mixed)

Suitable for areas with:

High-density settlements
Difficult soil conditions
A danger of groundwater pollution

Easy to recycle excreta

Does not require faecal sludge management (vacuum
tankers for pit emptying)
Does not require regular digging of new pits
Can be more portable (e.g. the Separett foldable UDD toilet
shown in Course 1 Unit 3 Part E)

19

4/9/2009

Course 2 Unit 2

Disadvantages of a UDD toilet compared to a pit

latrine
Requires user training and awareness, e.g. must not urinate
into the faeces compartment (one should also provide
waterless urinals for men)
Can
C produce
d
odours
d
if nott used
d correctly
tl
Still relatively new concept amongst NGOs, municipalities,
universities, consultants, manufacturers, etc.
Dried faecal matter must be removed once or twice per year
Anal washing with water (if practised) must take place over a
drain which is separate from the faeces vault
Urine must be collected, stored, transported and used as
fertiliser, or infiltrated into the ground or otherwise dealt with
Urine
U i collection
ll ti container
t i
could
ld b
be stolen
t l
Even the collected urine itself is known to have been
stolen once people appreciate its value as a fertiliser
(experience of CREPA in West Africa)!

How to select best on-site sanitation option?

Compare
p
sustainability
y of available options
p
((use sustainability
y
criteria, see Course 1 Unit 1) this includes: social, technical,
economic, environmental, public health and institutional aspects;
and/or
Use selection criteria based on local conditions (example on
next slide)

20

4/9/2009

Example: Short-listing of options for

peri-urban areas in Lusaka, Zambia (slide 1 of 2)
Selection criteria:
1. Not pollute groundwater (groundwater is used as
drinking water)
2 Not require water to transport waste (water is scarce
2.
and expensive)
3. Sanitise excreta to destroy pathogens (protect public
health)
4. Cost effective low capital and O&M (people have low
income)

Source: Mayumbelo (2006)

Short listed options:

z Option 1: VIP latrine and downstream
processing
z Option 2: Single-vault UDD toilet and
downstream processing

Note: Option 1 does not meet selection criterion 1 but is included to

serve as a reference point in the cost analysis

Course 2 Unit 2

Example contd: Decide on the implementation

level (slide 2 of 2)
Household facility
One toilet for 4 people

Plot facility
One toilet for all people living on one plot (12 in this case)

Communal facility
One toilet block that is shared by a number of plots

Good compromise
between convenience
and cost

21

4/9/2009

And at the end: Summary of conflict between

(conventional) onsite sanitation and urbanization

References for this presentation (slide 1 of 2)

Harvey, P., Bastable, A., Ferron, S., Forster, T., Hoque, E., Morris, L., Piano, E., and Smith,
M. (2007) Excreta Disposal in Emergencies: A Field Manual, WEDC, Loughborough
University Available: http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/projects/new_projects3.php?id=15 *
Heinss, U., Larmie, S. A., and Strauss, M. (1998) Solids separation and pond systems for the
treatment of faecal sludges in the tropics. Lessons learnt and recommendations for
preliminary
li i
d
design.
i
EAWAG/SANDEC
EAWAG/SANDEC, Db
Dbendorf,
d f Switzerland.
S it l d
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_ewm/downl
oads_ewm/solids_sep_and_pond_treatm.pdf *
Steiner, M., Montangero, A., Kon, D., and Strauss, M. (2002) Economic aspects of low-cost
faecal sludge management. Estimation of collection, haulage, treatment and disposal /reuse
cost, EAWAG/SANDEC, Dbendorf, Switzerland.
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_ewm/downl
oads_ewm/FSM_cost_report.pdf *
WHO/UNICEF (2006) Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target The Urban
and Rural Challenge of the Decade. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for
Water Supply and Sanitation. Available:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp2006/en/index.html (provided
under Course 1 Unit 1 Assigned Reading)

* Provided on the I-LE for this course unit (Extra materials)

22

4/9/2009

References (slide 2 of 2)
recent MSc theses at UNESCO-IHE
Mwase, H. (2006) The potential of ecosan to provide
sustainable sanitation in emergency situations and to achieve
quick wins in MDGs, MSc Thesis, UNESCO-IHE Institute
for Water Education,
Education Delft,
Delft The Netherlands
Mayumbelo, K. M. K. (2006) Cost analysis for applying
ecosan in peri-urban areas to achieve the MDGs - Case
study of Lusaka, Zambia, MSc Thesis MWI 2006-10,
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Vodounhessi, A. (2006) Financial and institutional challenges
to make faecal sludge management integrated part of ecosan
approach in West Africa
Africa. Case study of Kumasi
Kumasi, Ghana
Ghana. MSc
Thesis WM 2006.05, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water
Education, Delft, The Netherlands.
The first two are also available from the GTZ literature database:
http://www.gtz.de/en/themen/umwelt-infrastruktur/wasser/9835.htm

23