Conventional on-site sanitation

Instructors:
Dr. Sudip K Pal, Civil Engg. CUET
sudip@cuet.ac.bd
Mariska Ronteltap, UNESCO-IHE
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”
This Unit has been made entirely by Elisabeth von Münch without
editing; you can hear her on the audiofiles also on the platform.
2
 Part A: Overview

Clarification of terms:
Latrine is used interchangeably with the term “toilet”
Pit = Hole in the ground (not water tight)
Vault = Container above ground (water tight)
 What do we mean by “conventional” and “on-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!)
“On-site” means:
▪ Not connected to sewer
▪ Treated “at the site where
people live”
– but this is not always
strictly 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 other alternative
could be to tanker the
wastewater away)
 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
Municipalities face huge costs to rehabilitate aging sewer infrastructure 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
– 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
greywater treatment aspects
 On-site sanitation is quite easy if…

…Population density is low …or if money is not an issue!

(e.g. rural areas)

But big problems for:

High population density and low
income (peri-urban areas, this is the
slums) focus of this
lecture: low-
cost 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?

 Conventional low-cost excreta management methods (in
approximate order of increasing system cost)
Excreta disposal method Needs faecal Can accept Human dignity Public health
sludge mgmt.? greywater? risk

Open defecation No No Very low Very high

Flying toilet No No Very low Very high
Bucket latrine Yes No Low High
Simple pit latrine Yes No Can be OK Medium
Ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrine Yes No OK Low

Urine-diversion dehydrating toilet* No but faecal No OK Low

matter collection

Pour-flush latrine with pit, aqua privy Yes No OK Low

Water-flush or pour-flush toilet with Yes Yes OK Low

septic tank
Water-flush toilet with holding tanks / Yes Yes OK Low
cess pits

* Not (yet) conventional but included for comparison

More about costs: see Course 4 Unit 1 “Financial aspects”
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
Remember: these are not counted as
2. Flying toilet basic/improved sanitation in the
MDGs
3. Bucket latrine
4. Simple pit latrine
5. Ventilated improved pit latrine These can be counted as
basic/improved
6. Pour-flush latrine with pit or septic tank sanitation in the MDGs
if no open pit but pit
7. Aqua privy with septic tank with slab, not shared,
not public toilet and
8. Water-flush toilet with septic tank adequate treatment of
faecal sludge (see
9. Water-flush toilet with holding tanks / cess pits 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
 1. Open defecation

▪ About 2.0 billion people have no

access to basic sanitation
(WHO/UNICEF, 2018) 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
▪ Defecate and urinate into a bucket
which is regularly emptied
manually

http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/NBC/shelter.in.place.html
 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

 (from Course 1 Unit 3)

Reminder: How can pit latrines affect the groundwater?

Pit latrine Shallow

drinking water
well

Groundwater Nitrate
Groundwater
(clean) (polluted)
Pathogens
 Question: so why don’t we build fully lined pit
latrines?

▪ If a pit latrine was fully lined, it would no longer be a 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
 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 breeding)
Fly
▪ Toilet room and pit should be dark to not Air flow screen
attract flies
▪ Some VIPs are built as a double-pit
structure (see next slide)
Super- Vent pipe
structure

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

Source: Harvey et al. (2007)

 Double Pit VIP Latrine

▪ 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
▪ But lack of faecal
sludge management
and potential for
groundwater pollution
are still problems

Pit in use Pit: Liquid seeps into the

(drying) ground (no separate urine
collection)

Source: http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/waterandsanitation/resources/pdf-files
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 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.”
 Typical problems with pit
latrines in peri-urban areas
▪ High odour levels
▪ Fly breeding
▪ Overflowing
▪ Collapsing of pits
▪ 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 for drinking water by using
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.”
 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
inside of by South Africa),
December 2006)

Photo: E. v. Münch
 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)
 Pit emptying

▪ After some months or years of use

(depending on the number of users
and the size of the pit), a pit latrine
fills up. It then needs to be either
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 tanker collecting
vacuum tankers faecal sludge from septic tank
 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)
 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 toilet’s
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)

 8. Water-flush toilet with
septic tank
Septic tanks:
▪ Underground tanks, usually one per
household
▪ Work in conjunction with water-flush
toilets
▪ Combined settling, skimming and
anaerobic digestion
▪ Solution for the wealthy in developing
countries (requires water for flushing)
▪ Pre-treated, settled effluent usually
infiltrated into ground (“soakaway”)
▪ 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) Underground septic tanks in Maseru,
See “Introduction to Anaerobic Treatment” (Course 2 Unit 4) and Lesotho (Dec. 2006)
“Conventional Faecal Sludge Management” (Course 2 Unit 7)
 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
 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 is undersized (little anaerobic treatment occurring)
– 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!

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, 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
“Faecal
Some handysludge management”)
rules of thumb:
◼ 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)
 Faecal sludge management overview

Proposed scenario Current situation

= Faecal sludge crisis:
(need to add
water to ◼ uncontrolled
empty pit by disposal
pumping)
◼ 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
 Example: Single vault urine-diversion dehydrating (UDD)
toilet

▪ This type 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 (Double vault UDD toilet

material 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)
 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 produce odours if not used correctly
▪ 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 collection container could be stolen
– 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 sustainability of available options (use sustainability

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)
 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
and expensive)
3. Sanitise excreta to destroy pathogens (protect public
health)
4. Cost effective – low capital and O&M (people have low
income)

Short listed options:

⚫ Option 1: VIP latrine and downstream
processing
⚫ Option 2: Single-vault UDD toilet and
Source: Mayumbelo (2006)
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 cont’d: 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
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 design. EAWAG/SANDEC, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_ewm/downl
oads_ewm/solids_sep_and_pond_treatm.pdf *
▪ Steiner, M., Montangero, A., Koné, D., and Strauss, M. (2002) Economic aspects of low-cost
faecal sludge management. Estimation of collection, haulage, treatment and disposal /reuse
cost, EAWAG/SANDEC, Dübendorf, 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)

 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, 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. Case study of Kumasi, 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