QN; Taking into consideration a local context of an area of your choice, suggest excreta

sanitation technologies you would consider appropriate.

Discuss the factors related to appropriate sanitation taken into consideration while
suggesting the technologies.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background

For starters, an efficient Integrated Waste Management System considers how to reduce,
reuse, recycle, and manage waste to protect human health and the natural environment. It
involves evaluating local conditions and needs. It then involves choosing, mixing and
applying the most suitable solid waste management activities according to the condition.
With rapid population expansion and constant economic development, waste generation both
in residential as well as industrial areas continues to grow rapidly, putting pressure on
society's ability to process and dispose of this material. In addition, inappropriately managed
solid waste streams can pose a significant risk to health and environmental concerns.
Improper waste handling in conjunction with uncontrolled waste dumping can cause a broad
range of problems, including polluting water, attracting rodents and insects, as well as
increasing floods due to blockage in drains.
Having a comprehensive waste management system for efficient waste collection,
transportation, and systematic waste disposal together with activities to reduce waste
generation and increase waste recycling can significantly reduce all these problems. While
nothing new, an ISWM approach provides the opportunity to create a suitable combination
of existing waste management practices to manage waste most efficiently. All of this was
taken into consideration, as the study of an integrated waste management system in Uganda
Christian University was undertaken.

There are a number of types of waste that are generated within Uganda Christian University
and they include;
 Solid waste
 Liquid waste
Solid waste
This is the useless, unwanted and discarded material resulting from daily activities in the
community (Ashish R Mishra, 2013). In Uganda Christian University, there are different
categories of solid waste which are generated within University premises inclusive of:
 Municipal solid waste
 Biomedical waste
 Hazardous waste
 Agricultural waste.

Below are examples of different types of solid waste generated in the University and how
they are managed;
I. Municipal waste.
This type of waste includes household waste, commercial waste, and demolition waste. In
Uganda Christian University, this type of waste is generated from the University dining hall
and kitchen, University halls of residence, staff quotas and all over the University as a
whole. Under municipal waste, there are two categories of waste generated in the University
and these include:
 Biodegradable waste: This is the type of waste that can be decomposed by bacteria
or other living organisms. Some of the examples of biodegradable waste generated in
the University include papers, boxes, peelings, food wastes and grass among others.
 Non-biodegradable waste: This is the type of waste that cannot be decomposed by
bacteria. Some of the examples include plastics, rugs, tins, metal foils and glass
bottles among others.
Mode of management
These wastes are managed by collecting them in the different bins placed around the
university and then transporting them to the incinerator. This is with the exception of
peelings, food waste and grass. At the incinerator, plastic bottles are sorted out and then
taken for recycling while all other non-biodegradable waste is burnt in the incinerator.
The grass is collected in sacks then taken by farmers who use it for agricultural activities
while all the food waste and the peelings collected from dining hall and the kitchen is
usually managed by selling it off to farmers who major in animal keeping and other
agricultural activities.
II. Biomedical waste
This is defined as solid waste generated during the diagnosis, testing, treatment, research, or
production of biological products for humans or animals. (Yamini Ugender October 25.
2017) Some of the examples of this type of waste include gloves, gauze, syringes, cotton
wool, discarded vaccines and live vaccines, sharp needles and body fluids. In the University,
this type of waste is generated from the university infirmary.
Mode of management.
This type of waste is collected in the different bins labelled, general bin, infectious, non-
infectious, and hazardous. This waste is there after collected and transported to Mukono
Hospital where a subcontract company named Green label further collects it after which it is
transported to Nakasongola where there is an Incinerator for medical waste.
III. Hazardous waste.
This is defined as waste that may contain toxic substances generated from hospitals,
industries and also some types of household waste. These wastes are could be corrosive,
inflammable, explosive, or reactive when exposed to other material (Hosam EI-Din M. Selah
January 19th, 2016). In the University, the sources of hazardous include the University
infirmary, the University labs, University power station, and computer laboratories.
Examples of such waste in UCU include medical waste in general, e- waste (used computers
and other electronics), used power cables, brown bulbs and chemical tubes from the labs.
Mode of management.
Whereas the medical waste generated from the university infirmary is managed as discussed
above, the used computers and other electronics are sold-off to the public for further use.
The used power cables are kept and they are reused when there is need to use them again.
The brown tube and bulbs are collected and they are taken to the incinerator where they are
burnt at high temperatures.
Waste water/ Liquid waste
This refers to domestic waste water generated from toilets, bathrooms, washings, cleaning,
community stand post/hand pumps etc. (Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, 2012).
Below are some of the different types of liquid wastes generated in the University and how
they are managed;
a) Sewage waste
This refers to wastewater from the community including faecal matter, urine and
household and commercial waste water that contain human waste but not storm water
(water and sewage Act 2000. P.38). In the university, generated sewage include grey
water, black water, yellow water, sludge, sullage, faecal sludge, septage among others
and this generated from University halls of residence(Nsibambi, Sabiti, and Honor’s
college), dining hall and kitchen and staff quotas. This waste water comes from the
flush toilets, bathrooms carwash bay, students washing bays among others.
Mode of management.
This waste water from the University halls of residence is channeled into the sewer lines
which link to the sewage/waste water treatment plant in Tech Park and some is channeled to
the septic tank which is in Tech Park. However on the other hand waste water that is
generated from car wash bay, student’s washing bays is just poured on the ground and it is
absorbed in the ground.

b) Storm waste water.

This is the runoff water collected from roof tops and also all over the university during a
storm.
Mode of management
Some of the storm water in UCU is channeled in the trenches and collected to the university
pond at the main gate and some is channeled in trenches and directed to the outside trenches.

c) Hazardous liquid waste.

This is includes all liquid waste that may cause harm to the environment and its surrounding.
In UCU, these hazardous liquid wastes are generated from the university labs. This liquid
waste includes used liquid chemicals and waste water used for cleaning lab equipment
among others.
Mode of management.
Theses hazardous liquid waste waters are passed through the pipe line and are is channeled
in the septic tank where after they are collected by sewage track and they are taken for
recycling.

The different ways that we can improve on the integrated waste system of Uganda Christian
University are;

Since we were tasked to come up with appropriate technologies for an area of choice, we
chose Kikooza slum to enable us put our sanitation knowledge and problem solving to the
test. A study was then taken on Kikooza to project the principles of Integrated Waste
Management onto the given area.

To begin with, excreta disposal refers to the safe disposal of excreta, so that it does not
contaminate the environment, water, food or hands, is essential for ensuring a healthy
environment and for protecting personal health. This can be accomplished in many ways,
some requiring water, others requiring little or none. Regardless of method, the safe disposal
of human faeces is one of the principal ways of breaking the faecal–oral disease transmission
cycle. Sanitation is therefore a critical barrier to disease transmission. Plans for locating
sanitation facilities, and for treating and removing waste, must consider cultural issues,
particularly as sanitation is usually focused on the household. Excreta disposal may be a
difficult subject for a community to discuss: it may be taboo, or people may not like to
discuss issues they regard as personal and unclean. In some cases, people may feel that
sanitation facilities are not appropriate for children, or that children’s faeces are not harmful.
In others, separate facilities may be required for men and women, and it may be necessary to
locate the facilities so that no one is seen entering the latrine building. If the disposal
facilities smell and are a breeding ground for flies, people may not use them. Health
improvement comes from the proper use of sanitation facilities, not simply their physical
presence, and they may be abandoned if the level of service does not meet the social and
cultural needs of community members at an affordable cost. Within a community, several
different sanitation options may be required, with varying levels of convenience and cost.
The advantage of this approach is that it allows households to progressively upgrade
sanitation facilities over time.

Unimproved sanitation facilities do not ensure a hygienic separation of human excreta from
human contact and include pit latrines without platforms or open pit, bucket latrines, open
defecation in fields, forests, bushes and water bodies. Improved sanitation includes
sanitation facilities that hygienically separate human excreta from human contact. Shared
sanitation facilities are otherwise-acceptable improved sanitation facilities that are shared
between two or more households. Shared facilities include public toilets and are not
considered improved. Technologies for excreta disposal, with illustrations, are briefly
discussed below;

1. Cartage
Cartage is the most basic form of excreta disposal where faeces are collected in a container
and disposed of daily. An example is the bucket latrine, in which household wastes are
collected in buckets under a hole in the floor of a specific room. Each day, the bucket is
emptied into a larger container and the contents disposed of. Bucket latrines should not be
promoted because they pose health risks to both users and collectors and may spread disease.

2. Traditional pit latrines

In most pit latrine systems, faecal matter is stored in a pit and left to decompose. Unless
specifically designed, pit latrines do not require periodic emptying; once a pit is full it is
sealed and a new pit dug. If faecal matter is left to decompose in dry conditions for at least
two years, the contents can be safely emptied manually and the pit reused. Indeed, some pit
latrines are designed to allow faecal matter to compost and be reused in agriculture. Other
designs use two alternating pits, reducing the need for new pits. Some pit designs are meant
to be completely dry, while some use small quantities of water. The distance from water
 wells and surface water should be at least 10 meters to decrease the risk of groundwater
pollution. Ventilation to remove odours and flies is incorporated into certain designs, while
others are very basic and use traditional materials and approaches. When properly built and
maintained, pit latrines can decrease the spread of disease by reducing the amount of human
feces in the environment from open defecation. This decreases the transfer of pathogens
between feces and food by flies

METHODOLOGIES FOLLOWED FOR THE CASE STUDY

To assess existing solid and liquid waste management and to come up with a situational
analysis of Kikooza, we employed data collection methods such as below.

i. Questionnaires

We came up with questionnaires designed to give us an insight into the behavioral practices
as well as preferences of the people in and around this market. These questionnaires were
confidential and the selection was random.

ii. Transect walk

Oral question and answer sessions with the residents, vendors and shopkeepers proved vital
for our data collection.
iii. Baseline survey

We took a survey of this area, observing the kinds of excreta technologies used and the
condition they were in as well as the general sanitation.

SITUATION ANALYSIS

Kikooza slum

From observations, the excreta technologies used in Kikooza are

pit latrines. The specific kind preferred is traditional/simple
latrines. The residents maintain these latrines and share them with
the vendors and shopkeepers around the market. We observed that
these latrines were generally clean. The data we collected
reflected that they are cleaned daily. However, there were some
exceptions to this.

Construction

The simple pit latrine is the cheapest and most basic form of improved sanitation (WHO).
Construction of a traditional pit latrine is such that a pit is dug after surveying groundwater
patterns in the area. The pit is lined with water proofing material and a concrete slab
mounted above this pit. This slab is then surrounded by a structure of choice to cover the
latrine. However, it was observed that some of the latrines in this area were not lined with
water proofing material and this poses a challenge for groundwater protection.
It was observed that the latrines were at least 6 meters from the residences, which is in
accordance with World Health Organization’s specifications. However, we observed that
there were three wells downhill, which means the water table isn’t far from the latrines
constructed uphill, as well as downhill. This deviates from the latrine specifications which
require latrines to be 2 meters above the water table in the wet season.

Operation and maintenance

While certain households have never had to empty their latrines, other households were
found to use DX4 chemicals to reduce on the fecal matter in the latrines. This in turn delays
the filling up of these latrines.

However, the general solution for latrines filling up was found to be shutdown of the
facilities. Full pit latrines are sealed off and new ones dug in a nearby location. As efficient
as this is for self-treatment of the fecal matter, it ultimately leads to underutilization of the
land.
Taking all the above into account, below are some of the proposed suggestions for the
improvement of excreta sanitation in Kikooza slum

1. The VIP latrine

The VIP (ventilated improved pit) latrine is designed to overcome some of the problems with
traditional latrine designs, but it is more expensive than a sanplat. It has a vent pipe from the
pit to above the roof of the building. When air flows across the top of the vent pipe, air is
drawn up the pipe from the pit and fresh air is drawn into the pit from the building.
Offensive odours from the pit thus pass through the vent pipe and do not enter the building.
The location of VIP latrines is important because unless a clear flow of air is maintained
across the top of the vent, the ventilation system may not be effective. VIP latrines should
therefore be located away from trees or high buildings that may limit airflow. In some cases
solar-powered fans are added giving a constant outwards flow from the vent pipe. A dark
vent pipe also helps the air to rise as the top of the pipe is usually covered with mosquito
meshing. If the inside of the building is kept partially dark, the flies will be attracted to light
at the top of the pipe, where they will be trapped and die. When the VIP latrine is
constructed and used properly, it provides great improvements in fly and odour control, but
may not eliminate either completely .A VIP latrine is designed to work as a dry system, with
any liquid in the content infiltrating into the surrounding soil. Although some liquid
inevitably will enter the pit, it should be minimized. For example, it would not be
appropriate to dispose of household wastewater into the pit as this may prevent
decomposition of the contents. VIP latrines are most appropriate where people do not use
water for cleaning themselves after defecating, but use solid materials such as paper,
corncobs or leaves.
 2. Twin pit latrine

A further possible improvement is the use of a second pit which is used in alternation with
the first pit. It means that the first pit can rest for the duration of time it takes to fill up the
second pit. When the second pit is also full, then the first pit is emptied. The fecal sludge
collected in that first pit has in the meantime undergone some degree of pathogen reduction
although this is unlikely to be complete. Also VIPs are sometimes built with two pits,
although for VIP toilets one problem can be that the users may not stick to this alternation
method and fill up both pits at the same time.

3. Sludge management

The fecal sludge may be transported by road to a sewage treatment facility, or to be

composted elsewhere. There are numerous licensed waste hauling companies providing such
service in areas where it is needed. When managed and treated correctly to achieve a high
degree of pathogen kill, fecal sludge from pit latrines could be used as a fertilizer due to its
high nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter content. However, it is hard to ensure that this
is done in a safe manner. The number of viable helminth eggs is commonly used as an
indicator organism to make a statement about the pathogen load in a fecal sludge sample.
Helminth eggs are very persistent to most treatment methods and are therefore a good
indicator.
4. Pit additives

A range of commercial products are available which claim to help reduce the volume of
feces in the pit and reduce odor and fly problems. They are collectively described as a pit
additive and many of them are based on the concept of effective microorganisms. The
intention is to add specific strains of microbes to aid the decomposition process Wood ash,
leaves, soil, compost, or sawdust can also be sprinkled on top of the feces to decrease the
smell in the case of pit latrines without a water seal.

Advantages of pit latrines may include

 Can be built and repaired with locally available materials

 Low capital costs depending on materials and pit depth

 Small land area required

Disadvantages of pit latrines may include

 Flies and odours are normally noticeable to the users

 The toilet has to be outdoors with the associated security risks if the person is living
in an insecure situation

 Low reduction in organic matter content and pathogens

 Possible contamination of groundwater with pathogens and nitrate

 Costs to empty the pits may be significant compared to capital costs

 Pit emptying is often done in a very unsafe manner

 Sludge requires further treatment and/or appropriate discharge

  Pit latrines are often relocated or re-built after some years (when the pit is full and if
the pit is not emptied) and thus need more space than urine-diverting dry toilets for
example and people are less willing to invest in a high-quality super-structure as it
will have to be dismantled at some point

Solid waste
Presently there is no collection and disposal mechanism in the house holds however the
mechanism available for the vendors is the Municipal council truck that collects garbage
every three days. In the market, we found various categories of the solid waste which
included both biodegradable and non-biodegradable. With regards to the biodegradable, we
found out that most solid waste generated is from agricultural products which include fresh
foods, vegetables, and fresh fruits. The wastes generated in market include peelings, fresh
food leftovers, and leaves that come along with the transportation of food in the market.
As for non-biodegradable, we found that waste generated included polythene, plastics, and
metals among others. The table below shows the current waste generation and the present
methods used for disposal of the waste.
Majority of the residents dump their biodegradable waste and non-biodegradable waste in
dustbins which is ultimately thrown in the open fields. A small proportion of households
dispose bio-degradable waste in a safe manner.
Existing Solid Waste Management System

Waste Generation Collection and Disposal

Total estimated Solid
Waste
Generated:
 1.5 – 2 tonnes per day
(based on an estimate of
250g per person per day)
Transportation
 Currently there is no Current Disposal methods
scientific system to daily  Vegetables & Food
collect and/or transport Waste:
the solid waste generated Given to livestock, reused in
 Once in a week months,
field
waste is collected from
 Plastics:
Types of Solid Waste: the roads/drains and Thrown outside in the open
 Biodegradable: transported to the area, fields, drains or burnt
Animal waste, vegetable landfill at the incinerator
 This process is
waste
contracted out by the
 Non-Biodegradable:
Municipal Council
Plastic bags, papers, glass
Solid Waste Sources:
 Households, shops,
clinics and market
venders.

The absence of a systematic solid waste handling method due to which the following issues
are being faced
 Accumulation of waste at open spaces, street sides/drains, leading to environmental
degradation
 Unhygienic conditions prevailing in the area leading to various health and sanitation
related diseases

Management of solid waste

One of the challenges that is being faced in Kikooza farmers market is that at time the
council truck take time of about two weeks without collecting the waste from the market.
When faced with these challenges, some of them transport their waste to the rubbish pits
while others keep the waste in sacks until the council’s trucks pass around to collect the
waste and the majority just deposit on the road side. Safe disposal of bio-degradable waste
includes disposing solid waste, composting, burying, re-using in the garden and having the
farmers around Kikooza collect the waste and feeding it to the cattle. As far as the volume of
waste generated is concerned, there is no specific measured data that is available. The
national waste generation average can be taken as a basis for designing a management
solution for solid waste disposed from the area.

Some of the suggestions to improve on the solid waste sanitation system are inclusive of:
Liquid waste

Existing Liquid Waste Management System

At present, there is a very inconsistent drainage system present in the Kikooza. A majority of
the household waste water is released onto public streets/broken storm water drains. Due to
flow of waste water into public areas, it has become a major source of bad odour, disease in
the Kikooza community. In the absence of systematic liquid waste handling methods,
following issues are being faced:
 From few houses, the waste water flows directly into the streets which is leading to
puddles forming in front of the households
 The discharges from the toilets/bathrooms are mostly let on to the storm water drains
which are either broken or choked
 The waste water gets collected at various points of the village due to non-functioning
drains and blockages in it at different points

Appropriate Sanitation Technologies

1. Low Pour Flush Latrines

Pour Flush sanitation has been proven successful and appropriate over a considerable period
of time in the Asian context. It looks like a flush toilet because the user sees the bowl not
human waste. It can be built inside and outside the house and is cost comparable to VIP. It is
feasible for both rural and high density areas.
The water tank can be filled manually using grey water from washing of dishes and clothes,
and from a connected gutter system. (Owusu E and Adjibolosoo S K 2016)

The scarcity of water and the high cost of attaining clean water services in Uganda motivates
the search for an option which requires little water and does not require sewers, large
amounts of water and waste water treatment plants. Innovation is the creation or adaptation
of new or existing knowledge, technologies, and techniques to solve social, environment or
economic issues and problems, and involves the transfer, diffusion and implementation of
knowledge and techniques. The prototype developed for this project was designed with these
principles in mind:
 Eliminating the problems frequently associated with a cistern and unreliable water
connection;
 Utilizing a water seal rather than a mechanical seal; and
  Aiming aesthetically to be as similar to a standard flush toilet as possible.
The pour flush latrine introduces a water seal between toilet bowl and sludge with the
result that smells and flies are eliminated from user interface.

Factors considered in suggesting the sanitation technology.

 Pour-flush toilets are safe from collapse and safer for small children than VIPs. The
resounding response regarding the safety of pour flush toilets highlights the
possibility of reducing anxiety around toilet use, increasing dignity, and reducing
open defecation in communities. With the leach pits off-set from the toilet, the risks
of falling into the pit immediately go to zero.
 Pour-flush toilets produce less smell and being easier to clean that pit toilets. For all
of these reasons, it can be assumed that use and overall satisfaction can increase with
the introduction of pour-flush toilets.
 The arrival of these technologies presents the opportunity of widespread access to
flushable toilets, because the low pour flush latrines only uses one to two litres of
water per flush. The latrines are suitable in areas where there is limited water supply
and can be flushed with grey water. The technology could significantly improve the
quality of sanitation in rural areas.
 The fairly affordable cost of construction/installation and maintenance of these
structures in terms of cleaning and setting up of new structures by the local
government authorities.

 Controlled environmental pollution since S-shaped bend traps water that blocks bad
smell from polluting the environment; the lined pit is sealed and well-constructed to
avoid infiltration of waste water into the underground water.
PROPOSED LIQUID WASTE MANAGEMENT

The system for liquid waste management is broadly based on the system of soak pits
traditionally adopted for building toilets in rural areas but with certain modifications to
allow for disposal of household waste water. The model envisages clusters of houses such
that for every 10 houses, a soak pit is built to allow water only from the 10 houses to flow
into. The water from the houses flow in to these soak pits via underground channels and fall
into the soak pit. The water will gradually soak into the sides of the pit and filter down to
the ground water table. The soak pit being constructed will be 2m in diameter and 10m in

Community
soak pit

depth. The soil has a low soaking capacity due to which this soak pit will have a longer
depth than traditional community soak pits. (Alagidede P and Alagidede A N 2016).
Factors considered in suggesting the sanitation technology.
 The fairly affordable cost of construction/installation and maintenance of these structures in
terms of cleaning and setting up of new structures
 The drainage of the area is favourable since channels were constructed along the slope to
collect water hence simplicity in draining of the water

Conclusion and recommendation

REFERENCES

  Bakare, BF; Brouckaert, CJ; Foxon, KM; Buckley, CA (2015). "An investigation of the
effect of pit latrine additives on VIP latrine sludge content under laboratory and field trials".
Water SA. 41 (4): 509. doi:10.4314/wsa.v41i4.10. ISSN 0378-4738.

  Foxon, K., Still, D. (2012). Do pit additives work? Archived 13 February 2015 at the
Wayback Machine Water Research Commission (WRC), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Partners
in Development (PiD), South Africa

  WHO, UNICEF (2009). Diarrhoea : why children are still dying and what can be done
(PDF). New York: United Nations Children's Fund. p. 2. ISBN 978-92-806-4462-3. Archived
(PDF) from the original on 19 October 2013.

  McIntyre, P.; Casella D.; Fonseca, C.; Burr, P. Priceless! Uncovering the real costs of
water and sanitation (PDF). The Hague: IRC. ISBN 978-90-6687-082-6. Archived (PDF) from
the original on 13 March 2016. Retrieved 22 May 2016.

References.
Solid waste management case study January 2013, Ashish Mishra, Shweta A Mishara. Anurag
Tiwari.
Biomedical waste managent, Yamini Ugender October 25. 2017.
Introduction to Hazardous waste management, (Hosam EI-Din M. Selah January 19th, 2016).
Sanitation and liquid waste management, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran (MJP). CEPT
University. 2012