How to Design Wastewater Systems for

How to Design

How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Local Conditions in Developing Countries
David M Robbins and Grant C. Ligon
This is a practical handbook providing a step-by-step approach to the techniques used for Wastewater Systems
for Local Conditions in
characterizing wastewater sources and investigating sites where collection, treatment
and reuse/disposal technologies will be installed. It is intended to help enable local
implementation of on-site and decentralized wastewater management system (DWMS)
for wide scale use in development settings.

Developing Countries
How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries helps
local service providers and regulatory officials make informed decisions through the
use of tools, checklists and case studies. It includes a link to a web based community of
on-site and decentralized wastewater professionals, which contains related tools and
case studies. This handbook serves as a reference for training classes, certification
programs, and higher education programs in civil and sanitary engineering.

There is an increasing interest on the part of local government officials and private
sector service providers to implement wastewater treatment systems to solve sanitation
problems. The model presented in this handbook promotes activities that first generate
data related to source and site conditions that represent critical inputs, and then applies David M Robbins and Grant C. Ligon
this information to the technology selection process. Matching the most appropriate
technologies to the specific needs of the wastewater project is the key that leads to long
term sustainability.

How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries is

an invaluable resource for public sector decision makers and private sector service
providers in developing countries. It is also a useful text for students at engineering
colleges in developing countries interested in taking a class that teaches the methods of

David M Robbins and Grant C. Ligon

decentralized wastewater management system (DWMS) development.

iwapublishing.com
@IWAPublishing
ISBN: 9781780404769 (Paperback)
ISBN: 9781780404776 (eBook)

How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries_280x215_layout_final.indd 1 14/02/2014 16:36
How to Design Wastewater Systems for
Local Conditions in Developing Countries
How to Design Wastewater Systems for
Local Conditions in Developing Countries

David M. Robbins and Grant C. Ligon

Published by IWA Publishing
Alliance House
12 Caxton Street
London SW1H 0QS, UK
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7654 5500
Fax: +44 (0)20 7654 5555
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.iwapublishing.com

First published 2014

© 2014 IWA Publishing

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the UK Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act (1998), no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission
in writing of the publisher, or, in the case of photographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing
Agency in the UK, or in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the appropriate reproduction rights organization outside the UK. Enquiries
concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to IWA Publishing at the address printed above.

The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot
accept any legal responsibility or liability for errors or omissions that may be made.

Disclaimer
The information provided and the opinions given in this publication are not necessarily those of IWA and should not be acted upon without
independent consideration and professional advice. IWA and the Author will not accept responsibility for any loss or damage suffered by any
person acting or refraining from acting upon any material contained in this publication.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 9781780404769 (Paperback)

ISBN: 9781780404776 (eBook)

RTI International is an independent, nonprofit institute that provides research, development and technical services to government and
commercial clients worldwide. Our mission is to improve the human condition by turning knowledge into practice. RTI International is a trade
name of Research Triangle Institute.
Contents

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Quick guide – New project checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Chapter 1
Introduction to decentralized wastewater management systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1 Combining technologies to form systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.2 Evolution of the concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 The Purpose of this Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3 The Audience for this Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 The DWMS Development Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 How to use Print and Web Versions of this Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.6 Definitions and Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.7 Guiding Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 2
Characterizing the source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 Wastewater Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1 Blackwater and graywater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Wastewater Source Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1 Residential housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2 Public markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.3 Hospitals and health care facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.4 Slaughterhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.5 Hotels, resorts, and restaurants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3.6 Office, daily use, and less regular-use buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.7 Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.8 Other commercial facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.9 Community wastewater systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
vi How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

2.4 Determining the Design Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.4.1 Measuring flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.2 Gathering and applying data from similar projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.3 Using standard wastewater generation value tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5 Assessing Wastewater Strength and Organic Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.6 Quantifying Flow Variability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.6.1 Flow equalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7 Nutrients in Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.7.1 Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.7.2 Phosphorus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.8 Other Wastewater Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.8.1 Fats, oils, and grease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.8.2 Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.8.3 Trash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.9 Physical and Chemical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.9.1 Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.9.2 The pH level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.9.3 Problematic chemical constituents in wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.10 Microbiological Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.11 Sampling and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.11.1 Preparing a sampling plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.11.2 Collecting representative samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.11.3 Proper handling and preservation of field samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.11.4 Chain of custody and sample identification procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.11.5 Quality assurance/quality control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.12 Reviewing Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter 3
Evaluating the site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2 Creating and Using a Site Plan Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.1 Step-by-step procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.2 Estimating the amount of land available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.3 Identifying site features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3 Soils Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.1 Tasks involved in soils evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.2 Excavating test holes and soil borings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.3 Identifying and evaluating soils horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.4 Identifying the water table and other limiting conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.3.5 Evaluating slope and topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.3.6 Determining long term acceptance rate and identifying other soil-based concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.4 Determining if Surface Waters are Limiting Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.5 Determining How Land use of Surrounding Parcels Affects DWMS Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.6 Identifying Utilities, Pre-Existing DWMS, and Related Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.6.1 Electrical utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.6.2 Water availability for system operation and maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.6.3 Existing DWMS components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.7 Evaluating Accessibility Issues for DWMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.8 Benefitting from Wastewater Residuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.9 Assessing Regulatory Aspects of Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.10 Reviewing Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
 Contents vii

Chapter 4
DWMS technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1 DWMS Component Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.2 Typical DWMS Component Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3 User Interface and Pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3.1 User interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3.2 Pretreatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.4 Conveyance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.1 Building and gravity sewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.2 Simplified sewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.4.3 Solids-free sewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.4.4 Pressure sewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5 Primary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.5.1 Septic tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.5.2 Anaerobic baffled reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.5.3 Anaerobic digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.5.4 Other primary treatment options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.6 Secondary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.6.1 Soils-based dispersal systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.6.2 Constructed wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.6.3 Waste stabilization ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.6.4 Media filters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.6.5 Aerobic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.7 Tertiary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.7.1 Tertiary filtration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.7.2 Disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.8 End of the Cycle – Safe Discharge or Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.9 Determining the Level of Required Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.9.1 Meeting discharge and reuse standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Chapter 5
Selecting wastewater technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.1 Interpreting the Data Collected from the Source and Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.1.1 Flow to land availability ratio concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.2 Technology Selection Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.2.1 Additional considerations for technology selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
5.3 Conclusion and Looking Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Appendices
Practical application of soils evaluation data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Appendix I
More on soils evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix II
Example soils evaluation data interpretation and LTAR calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Dedication

This manual is dedicated to Lisa Lumbao and the staff of the Philippine Sanitation Alliance for their adherence to the principle
that everyone has the right to affordable sanitation, and that this can be achieved through the sharing of knowledge, best
practices, and lessons learned.

The staff of the Philippine Sanitation Alliance, through which the guiding
principles of this manual were conceived. From left to right: Milag
Ballesteros, Rhodora Sanidad, Jenny Palmera, Jay Tecson, Lisa Lumbao,
David Robbins, Lou Capule, and Ritchelle Urgelles. Not pictured: Nene
Narvaez, Andrea Echavez and Lito Santos.
Acknowledgements

The success of this type of manual is based on how well it provides useful, applicable, and accurate information, and to what extent it
motivates people into action. To achieve this, the authors have reached out to a number of collaborative individuals and organizations
that were willing to share their knowledge, information, case studies and best practices in the hopes of creating a simplified approach to a
complex problem. Their collective knowledge is represented throughout as the foundation of this manual. The authors sincerely thank the
organizations and individuals listed below for their contribution to this manual:

• The Department of Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Sciences and Technology
(Eawag/Sandec), Dübendorf, Switzerland, creators of ‘The Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies’, referred to
through the manual as ‘Compendium’. The 2014 (2nd revised) edition, authored by Elizabeth Tilley, Lukas Ulrich, Christoph Lüthi,
Philippe Reymond, and Chris Zurbrügg, is cited frequently and can be accessed online: http://www.eawag.ch/forschung/sandec/
publikationen/compendium_e/index_EN
• David Lindbo and the Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment, developers of the Decentralized Wastewater
Systems Glossary (2009) and Installation of Wastewater Treatment Systems 2009 manual, of which ‘Chapter 4: Soil and Site
Concepts for Installers’ written by David Lindbo was frequently used. Through their kind cooperation, they have provided text and
images for this manual, which are either referred to as (CIDWT, 2009), (Lindbo, 2009) or (Lindbo, 2013), the latter of which is from
personal communication. These and with other excellent resources can be accessed at: http://www.onsiteconsortium.org.
• PhD students Matthew Verbyla and Erin Symonds at the University of South Florida (USF), Mercedes Iriarte at the Universidad Mayor de
San Simon in Bolivia, and others within the international, collaborative ‘Reclaim’ Initiative led by USF (http://usf-reclaim.org/).
• Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) with special thanks to Shom Teoh for sharing her work on community-based grease
management programs in Thailand.
• North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of
Soil Science. Special thanks to Dr. Mike Hoover, Cary, North Carolina, USA, who generously provided guidance and many graphics,
referred to as (Hoover, 2013).
• North Carolina Division of Public Health, with special thanks to Steven Berkowitz for his kind review and many suggestions for
improving this manual.
• Coconino County Environmental Services, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Special thanks to Joelle Wirth, manager of the on-site wastewater
management program, for her insights into soils and site-evaluation techniques.
• The International Water Association (IWA) (http://www.iwahq.org/1nb/home.html). They have been key in the development of this
publication, not only as publishers, but as a major organization in promoting decentralized wastewater management systems through
global conferences, workshops, and collaborations.
• Special thanks to Vince Delector, water and sanitation engineer for Habitat for Humanity; Aurélien Vétil of One Acre Fund; Heather
Durand of Duke University; and Julian Doczi of the Overseas Development Institute for their reviews, input, images, and advice on
practical applicability.

Images and graphics were cited from the latter two contributors either as (Durand, 2013) or (Doczi, 2010, 2012).
Many other individuals and groups assisted with the preparation and review of this manual. The authors sincerely appreciate
the widespread enthusiasm for this project, and the level of interest in improving sanitation through decentralized wastewater management.
Foreword

Clean water is something we all want and need to survive. Being able to supply a population with clean
water has often focused on the treatment of water to bring it to safe drinking water standards. This is
indeed a laudable goal, but it can be hampered by the quality of the water being treated. In more rural
areas where the population relies on shallow wells or even surface water, large-scale potable water
treatment may not be always be feasible. So what can be done?
To answer this question, consider why water in many rural and urban fringe areas is polluted. Over
the past few decades, many international and national organizations have identified poor sanitation as a
source for drinking water contamination. This contamination often comes from the total lack of
wastewater treatment facilities or poor maintenance of those that exist. In rural areas, there is often
no infrastructure for centralized water or wastewater treatment. The lack of infrastructure is not due
to a lack of desire, but most often due to the prohibitive cost of central systems that are more
common in urban areas where the economies of scale can make these systems affordable. So what David Lindbo, professor
are these infrastructure-poor areas to do? and extension specialist,
The solution, applicable in many areas of the developing world, is age-old and has been adopted Department of Soil Science,
effectively in much of North America and Europe. Use the soil to treat the wastewater! We are not NC State University.
talking about a simple outhouse, but a system that is scientifically designed to not only disperse the
wastewater but also to treat it in the soil. The soil can treat the wastewater effectively before it
reaches groundwater and eventually surface water, where it can be used for drinking, bathing, irrigation, and a whole host of other uses.
By designing a system that relies on the soil, the water resource is protected, and the costs of drinking water treatment can be reduced.
Soil-based technologies are not the only systems applicable in developing country settings. However, where land is available and soils are
adequate, such systems are not only cost-effective, but often are the most protective of public health. This manual is a positive step in moving
towards a sustainable approach to developing wastewater infrastructure by providing the step-by-step procedures for choosing the most
appropriate technologies for particular projects and locations, including soil-based treatment and dispersal systems.
This manual focuses on the design of wastewater systems with the idea that one size does not fit all, but rather, that there are principles of
design common to all systems. It takes a step-by-step approach to design so that an individual, community, or region can choose what is best
for its wastewater management needs. The process involves four general tasks – source characterization, site evaluation, technology
identification, and technology selection. The use of checklists throughout the process makes the design process logical and
straightforward. It does not imply reliance on any one technology to solve all issues and recognizes there are many ways to achieve
similar results. The acknowledgement that soils may be a potential treatment medium for particular sites enhances this manual. By
understanding the nature of the soils and site conditions, designers can use the guidance provided in the manual to select the most
appropriate and cost-effective technologies and ensure they are designed to address any identified limitations. In many cases, this makes
wastewater systems more accessible to more people who may not have access to highly technical solutions.
As you use this manual, you will find that the authors have taken a holistic view towards helping you address your wastewater needs. It
provides a foundation for how to design a system to your locale and also gives you the understanding as to why certain approaches are chosen.
The approach will help you choose and design a system that is right for you and the situation you live in. In the end, you will get the solutions
you need for your local conditions rather than solutions that may not fit your local situation.
Quick guide – New project checklist

Use this checklist for investigating key parameters and technologies for new wastewater projects. Find additional information
on the pages indicated:

Task Yes No More

√ √ information

Source Characterization
Wastewater composition and types Page 12
Flow rate Page 19
Flow strength Page 22
Flow variability Page 24
Nutrient loading Page 25
Other problematic chemical constituents Page 26
Chemical and physical considerations Page 27
Microbiological considerations Page 28
Sampling and analysis Page 30

Site Evaluation
Site plan sketch Page 38
Test holes Page 43
Soil horizon properties Page 44
Water table and other limiting conditions Page 48
Slope and topography Page 49
Long Term Acceptance Rate and related concerns Page 51
Surface water features Page 52
Land use patterns and conflicts Page 52
Utilities and related conflicts Page 53
Site accessibility Page 57
Reuse opportunities Page 58
Regulatory requirements Page 59

Technology identification
Technology categories Page 62
User interface and pretreatment technologies Page 63
Conveyance (sewer) technologies Page 68
Primary treatment technologies Page 76
Secondary treatment technologies Page 81
Tertiary treatment technologies Page 99
Final discharge or reuse options Page 101
Level of required treatment Page 101

Technology selection
Flow to land availability ratio Page 108
Technology information comparison Page 111
Chapter 1
Introduction to decentralized wastewater
management systems

This chapter will

• Introduce the subject and importance of decentralized wastewater management systems;
• Introduce the purpose, need and audience for this manual; and
• Present the terms and definitions common to these systems.

Figure 1.1 Mr. Noun Makara (upper right) and his crew manufacture components for latrines outside of Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Utilizing the power of markets is an important tool for scaling up wastewater service delivery, as shown in this capacity building
project by IDE Cambodia: www.ide-cambodia.org (Authors).
2 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

About Figure 1.1

The photos of Mr. Makara’s latrine factory near Phnom Phen, Cambodia (Figure 1.1), illustrate how the power of
markets can be used to scale up sanitation. Market-based sanitation means matching the ability to supply products
with programs that enhance demand and provide incentives fostered by engaged local governments. The major
components are:

(1) Demand generation: People are generally willing to pay for improved sanitation if they believe it will address
their needs, wants, and desires. Understanding what these may be for a population means information must be
gathered. Development specialists use tools such as customer surveys, focus group discussions, and interviews
with key stakeholders to find out what people really want, what they think, and what they think they need
related to sanitation. In some instances, their overriding desire is to improve the health of their children. In
other areas, it might be the convenience of having indoor plumbing or the status of having a flush toilet.
When sanitation technologies are promoted to address the needs, wants, and desires of people treated
as customers, they will be more willing to pay for services. Also, it is important to note that to achieve
sustainability, the sanitation improvement must fulfill the promises that are made, or people will find other uses
for their money.
(2) The sanitation value chain: The value chain of decentralized wastewater management describes how technologies
are manufactured, sold, delivered, installed, operated, and maintained. To sustain the value chain, products
should be manufactured using local materials and labor, and service providers should be trained through strong
capacity-building exercises. When demand is generated (as described above), the value chain produces sales,
profits, jobs, and economic development.
(3) The enabling environment: This is the combination of incentives and the regulatory framework that promotes rather
than inhibits participation in sanitation improvement programs. Good programs include incentives that offer tangible
benefits to those that comply, as well as enforcement provisions for those that do not. It is also the way local
governments interact with citizens and businesses. Frameworks that speed up and simplify a fair and transparent
regulatory process can be powerful tools local governments can use to scale up sanitation using decentralized
wastewater management.

Achieving sanitation improvements at scale requires evidence-based promotions campaigns, a robust value chain, and an
enabling environment that works. When all three of these elements are present together, improving sanitation can be a strong
force for major social and environmental change.

1.1 BACKGROUND
In the past several decades, many organizations have described the lack of basic sanitation for much of the world’s population.
Estimates put the number of unserved people at more than two billion, mostly in South and East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
In those regions there are 45 countries where sanitation coverage is less than 50% (Figure 1.2).
While the estimates and definitions of access to basic (often referred to as ‘improved’) sanitation have been challenged, it is
widely agreed that this problem represents a crisis given the strength of the link between poor sanitation and disease and death,
especially in children. Poor sanitation results in a significant yet preventable health and financial burden on individuals,
families, communities, and countries. The economic burden is quite significant. For example, in India it was estimated that
in 2006 the cost of poor sanitation amounted to 6.4 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (World Bank Water
and Sanitation Program, 2010).
To meet the widespread need for wastewater treatment, centralized sewerage systems have been implemented as the norm
for large, medium, and even small sized cities and municipalities in developed countries. However, it is unlikely that centralized
wastewater treatment systems will be used in developing country settings except in the most densely populated urban centers.
The rest of the population, as well as the commercial, industrial, public, and other facilities lacking proper sanitation systems
will need to rely on site-specific solutions using on-site and decentralized wastewater treatment, dispersal, and reuse
technologies. The benefits of smaller, decentralized wastewater management systems are many, as they use simpler
technologies, allow for more cost-effective reuse of treated effluent on or near the site where the wastewater was generated,
are generally simpler to install and maintain, and can be a force for economic development. Indeed, they not only improve
sanitation and environmental health, but they can also lead to job creation along the entire value chain, from equipment
manufacturers to system designers, installers, and operators.
 Introduction to decentralized wastewater management systems 3

Proportion of people using improved sanitation, 2011

91-100%
76-90%
50-75%
<50%
Insufficient data or not applicable

Figure 1.2 Global overview of country-wide estimates of the percentage of countries’ populations served by basic sanitation
facilities (WHO/UNICEF, 2013).

1.1.1 Combining Technologies to Form Systems

Decentralized wastewater management systems, like their centralized counterparts, use a variety of technologies that work
together to achieve many goals. The major goals are to remove sewage away from humans, reduce the pollution from the
collected wastewater, and safely disperse the treated effluent, or reuse it and other residuals for beneficial purposes. These
are accomplished by linking appropriate technologies together to form systems that meet the specific needs of the
end-users. These systems, which vary widely in both complexity and cost, can include:

• toilets, or the human interface that includes individual toilets, latrines, and community-based toilet blocks that serve as
the first point of collection for human waste and help to remove it from potential human contact;
• sewers and wastewater collection technologies that collect wastewater from the interface and deliver it to locations for
treatment;
• treatment technologies that treat wastewater to a level that is ‘safe’ for discharge, reuse, or dispersal; and
• reuse and recycling, which represent the technologies that allow for the safe reuse or recycling of the treated effluent or
other residuals from the wastewater treatment process, such as biosolids and biogas.

Selecting the most appropriate technologies requires knowledge of the wastewater source and an understanding of the site
conditions where the wastewater will be managed. Knowing this information will help service providers to optimize their
systems as well as to avoid costly and time-consuming mistakes that could come from improper technology selection.
Given their importance, the procedures for conducting wastewater source characterizations and site evaluations in support
of decentralized wastewater management systems decision-making are the focus of this manual.

1.1.2 Evolution of the Concept

In recent years, many organizations have used different terminology to describe the concepts of on-site and decentralized
wastewater management. The term ‘on-site wastewater treatment systems’ has been used widely in the United States for
many years to describe septic systems and leach fields, or other wastewater systems that manage the wastewater on the site
where it was generated. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) popularized this term in their
‘Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual’, first published in 1980 and revised in 2002. Figure 1.3 shows the cover
of the 2002 book, which represents its focus on septic tanks and leach systems (colored in white) that serve many types of
institutions and housing clusters. This is a good visualization of the decentralized wastewater management concept that
forms the basis of this manual about ‘How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries’.
4 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 1.3 Cover page of US EPA 2002 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual (National Environmental Services
Center at West Virginia University, 2002).

DEWATS, or Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems, is an acronym popularized by the Bremen Overseas Research
and Development Association (BORDA) in the 1990s. BORDA considers DEWATS to be the various technologies for
primary and secondary wastewater treatment that have relatively low-cost operation and maintenance requirements and are
most suitable for low-income and sub-tropical regions (Sasse, 1998). The major example of their approach is their
DEWATS model, which uses a biogas digester and anaerobic baffled reactor for primary treatment and a constructed
wetland for secondary treatment.
The International Water Association (IWA) is also advancing the practice of decentralized wastewater management in
developing countries and has recently introduced the concept of wastewater management as a more holistic approach. In
their Conference on Decentralized Wastewater Management in Asia 2012, which occurred with the support of BORDA in
Nagpur, India, that concept was widely promoted by including topics of wastewater collection, treatment, reuse, and
recycling of the treated effluent, rather than just wastewater treatment and dispersal. Wastewater management also includes
planning, financing, promotion, and regulation of all aspects of wastewater, from its generation to its ultimate reuse or final
dispersal. For these reasons, the authors of this manual use the acronym DWM, which stands for decentralized wastewater
management, and the related term DWMS, which is used in this manual to mean decentralized wastewater management
system(s).

1.1.2.1 A Note on Scale

Defining DWMS is somewhat difficult because decentralization is a concept of scale. Unlike centralized systems that collect
and manage sewage at one location, decentralized systems manage the sewage closer to where it is generated. Under this
definition, a subdivision with 100 homes that uses individual septic tanks and leach fields for each house would be using a
decentralized approach to wastewater management. But would a common system that manages the wastewater from all 100
homes be considered a DWMS? For the purposes of this manual, the answer is ‘yes’, as the management is closer to the
sources than if it involved linkage to a single system that served an entire city. But what if 1,000 homes in different areas
combined their wastewater flows into a common system? Would these still be considered DWMS? The answer is that for
the purposes of this manual, it does not really matter. This manual’s goal is to provide useful information on the
 Introduction to decentralized wastewater management systems 5

step-by-step approach of source characterization and site evaluation to make informed technology decisions. When properly
trained, local government officials, service providers, or private developers can utilize the process, which is applicable to
wastewater projects of all size.

1.2 THE PURPOSE OF THIS MANUAL

People in developing regions of the world generally want improved sanitation and healthy children, and increasingly
are seeing the link between improving wastewater management and achieving these goals. Just as important, they
often have the ability to pay for wastewater management and the desire to do so. Also, there is often sufficient land
available to install systems, and locally available materials, labor, and resources to construct and maintain them. The
missing ingredient is the ‘how to’, meaning how to move from wanting proper wastewater management to implementing a
system.
This manual aims to provide the needed information that will help communities that want to improve sanitation utilize the
procedures and practices that can make DWMS a viable community-based solution. It details a process for making informed
technology decisions based on the specific nature of the development project. This manual can serve as a handbook, field guide,
text book, and resource for those with the desire to implement DWMS. In particular, it can serve as an important part of
necessary long-term capacity-building programs involving activities such as training, ‘twinning’ where more advanced
utilities (donors) join with less advanced utilities (recipients) for sharing of best practices, job sharing, mentoring, and
apprenticeships. This manual’s concepts serve as effective methods for teaching and certifying practitioners and may help
institutions of higher education find donor funding for train-the-trainer programs or establish degrees, certificates, or
in-service educational products.
Furthermore, this manual addresses the need for better methods of wastewater technology selection, which is achieved
through promoting a ‘context-specific’ approach to DWMS technology selection. The process identifies which technologies
are most appropriate given the source characteristics and site and other resource limitations. Once the data gathering
process is complete, appropriate technologies may be selected to meet the specific needs of the owner.
This manual includes check lists and step-by-step procedures to help users track the data gathering activities, and case
studies to illustrate practical applications. Tools, forms, and Internet links to additional information help the user organize
the collected data so that it may be used to base sound decisions for positive results. Case studies highlight how other
project implementers in similar settings have collected and used relevant information to address their wastewater
management needs. These case studies and practical applications are presented to inspire the reader to action by showing
that these tasks can be accomplished with available resources.
Finally, site evaluations and wastewater system designs are services that can be performed by the private sector and in many
instances, local government. It is hoped that this manual serves as useful guidance to the practitioners doing this work, and that
it simplifies tasks and improves results.

1.3 THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS MANUAL

This manual is intended to benefit three major audiences:

(1) Private-sector DWM service providers;

(2) Local and national government regulatory officials tasked with DWM oversight; and
(3) Development specialists and researchers, such as those within NGOs and civil society groups working to promote and
scale up sanitation improvement.

Building the capacity of private sector DWM service providers (Figure 1.4) is critical in scaling up sanitation improvement.
This core group of individuals and business owners are the first audience for this manual, and includes:

• engineers and service providers that will be tasked with planning the DWMS of the present and the future;
• contractors that will be required to install the system components using best installation practices;
• septic tank desludgers and general maintenance staff who will be paid to operate and maintain systems;
• plumbers and electricians who will be called upon to help the contractors properly install systems; and
• technology providers that must ensure that the components they sell to end-users are appropriate given the specific needs
and conditions of the project.
6 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 1.4 Engineer (a) and contractors (b) building a septage treatment tank in San Fernando City, Philippines
(Authors).

The second audience for this manual is local government officials who are responsible for wastewater management in their
communities. These officials may manage local sanitation plans, enforce local wastewater laws, or oversee planning and
installation of DWMS. In many instances, local governments have yet to implement procedures for DWMS, but many are
thinking about it. Agencies that apply the information in this manual to develop their DWMS programs will be more likely
to see the real and sustainable benefits for their community.
The third audience for this manual is development workers who promote sanitation through the power of DWMS.
Development projects are often the first sanitation interventions in a community or region. Development programs funded
by international donors may, in many cases, begin by working with local public and private stakeholders to create pilot
projects. Local pilot projects that follow a step-by-step approach and create systems that are appropriate for local
conditions can be a model for other projects in the community or region.

1.4 THE DWMS DEVELOPMENT MODEL

The DWMS Development Model (Figure 1.5) provides the basis for the step-by-step process for making informed
technology decisions. It also suggests a method for integrating wastewater decision-making into the local government’s
existing compliance structure. Each step in the process could be associated with officials’ physical inspection, with
plan review by trained specialists, or through self-compliance and reporting programs. The premise of the model is as
follows:

In order to determine the most appropriate technology choices of a DWMS for managing a specific wastewater flow, it is first
necessary to properly characterize the wastewater source. Then, the site where the wastewater will be managed must be
evaluated. These two steps must follow the principles stated below.

• The source must be characterized to determine the:

volume of wastewater to be treated, otherwise known as the hydraulic loading or design flow;
○

○ concentration of organic matter and other contaminants in the wastewater, otherwise known as wastewater strength;

○ variability of the source conditions as they change over time; and

○ other constituents or parameters that define the wastewater source.

• The site must be evaluated. This involves determining the:

○ conditions of the site, including soils properties, slope and topography, the presence of groundwater and surface

water, land use, utility issues, accessibility, reuse and regulatory concerns, and other aspects that may restrict the
site’s capacity to receive and process wastewater. It also suggests the range of DWMS technologies appropriate for
the site.
 Introduction to decentralized wastewater management systems 7

The DWMS Development Model is represented in Figure 1.5 below.

Figure 1.5 The DWMS Development Model.

Fortunately, performing source characterizations and site evaluations are well within the means of local service providers
and can often be accomplished with minimal cost and in a short period of time. The information gathered will inform the user
about the necessity for pretreatment units, the most appropriate sewer configurations, and which treatment and dispersal or
reuse technologies might be combined to achieve the desired end results.

1.5 HOW TO USE PRINT AND WEB VERSIONS OF THIS MANUAL

This manual includes text, step-by-step guidance, checklists, case studies, practical applications, and references. This manual
is also available on the IWA’s waterwiki website, the ‘Information Resource & Hub for the Global Water Community’ at
http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome.
On this manual’s electronic version, users will find active links to information found on the waterwiki website. All of
the forms and checklists found in the manual may be downloaded and printed. The electronic version provides links for
greater detail on the case studies, and other references and interactive toolkits can be explored and downloaded. To
help the reader navigate this information, the icons shown below will direct readers to external resources and key points. In
8 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

the electronic version of this manual, click the icon to link directly to the information. The icons used in this manual are as
follows:

Checklists: These help the user keep track of their progress in important steps in the process.

Case studies: These are an important way of sharing information on how others have addressed
similar issues.

Toolkits: These computerized spreadsheets are useful in certain aspects of source characterization,
site evaluation, and technology comparison and unit sizing. They should be considered as guidance
only, and not as a substitution for actual engineering, as the design should be performed by trained
experts with specific knowledge of the site.

Web resources: These resources relate to the procedures, technologies, and general information on
topics discussed within the manual. This icon implies that the source documents are either provided
on the waterwiki website or provided hyperlinks.

Best practices: These are lessons learned from other DWM practitioners as they have worked to
overcome difficult challenges of certain DWMS. These best practices have been thoroughly
developed and reviewed and deserve special attention. This icon indicates that the source documents
are either on the waterwiki website or provided hyperlinks.

Case studies are presented in tan text boxes.

Best practices are presented in blue text boxes.

1.6 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS

The following terms and definitions are adapted in part from the glossary of the Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment (2009).
Aerobic Treatment Unit (ATU) – 1. Treatment component that utilizes oxygen to degrade or decompose wastewater, with or
without mechanical means; 2. Term traditionally used to describe proprietary devices that use direct introduction of air
into wastewater by mechanical means to maintain aerobic conditions within the treatment component.
Anaerobic baffled reactor – An improved septic tank that uses multiple compartments through which the wastewater is forced to
flow upwards through the sludge blanket to trap solids, where they are retained and reduced through anaerobic digestion.
Anaerobic digestion – The degradation of concentrated wastewater solids by anaerobic bacteria. These break down the organic
material into inert solids, water, carbon dioxide, and methane, which can serve as an energy source.
Baffle – In a septic tank, an inlet baffle is a pipe, tee, or wall segment at or near the inlet pipe of a tank which is designed to slow
down and direct influent flow below the wastewater surface, isolate scum from the inlet pipe, and allow ventilation. An
outlet baffle is a pipe tee or wall segment at or near the outlet pipe of a tank designed to collect flow from the clear zone,
isolate scum from the outlet pipe, and allow ventilation.
Biosolids – Dewatered, primarily nutrient-rich organic material generated as a byproduct of biological wastewater treatment
processes that can be recycled (such as for use as a soil amendment).
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) – Quantitative measure of the amount of oxygen required for the biochemical oxidation of
carbonaceous material in wastewater; typically measured after a 5-day period.
 Introduction to decentralized wastewater management systems 9

Carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio – A ratio of the mass of carbon to the mass of nitrogen in a substance. Achieving proper balance
by mixing various combinations of plant and animal waste can achieve ‘ideal’ C:N ratios that maximize microbial
decomposition in compost piles, and methane production in anaerobic digesters.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) – Amount of the oxygen required for degradation of total matter in wastewater that can be
oxidized by a very strong chemical oxidant; typically measured by a standard test using dichromic acid as the oxidant.
Combined sewer – A sewer intended to receive both wastewater and storm water.
Coliform bacteria – Group of bacteria that constitute most of the intestinal flora of warm-blooded animals (including the genera
Klebsiella sp., Enterobacter sp., Citrobacter sp., or Escherichia sp.) and are used as water pollution indicator organisms.
Composite sample – Combined individual samples collected from the same point at different times; samples may be of equal
volume or may be proportional to the flow at time of sampling.
Daily Design Flow – Estimated volume of wastewater for a representative 24-hour period; parameter used to size systems.
Desludging – The process of cleaning or removing the accumulated sludge or septage from a latrine, septic tank or wastewater
treatment facility.
Domestic sewage – Wastewater of residential strength, or effluent from a septic tank or other primary treatment device with a
BOD5 less than or equal to 170 mg/L, total suspended solids (TSS) less than or equal to 60 mg/L, and fats, oils, and
grease less than or equal to 25 mg/L. It may include wastewater from commercial or food service sources, but not
industrial wastes.
Dry weather flow – The flow of wastewater in a combined sewer during dry weather. Such flow consists mainly of wastewater
with no storm water included.
Excreta – Human waste composed of urine and feces.
Effluent – Liquid flowing out of a component or device (the opposite of influent).
Facultative – Having the ability to live with or without free oxygen.
Grab sample – Individual sample collected at a particular time and location.
Helminths – Parasitic worm-like organisms that feed off living hosts and produce eggs that persist in wastewater effluent and
septage sludge unless properly treated.
Impermeable – Permitting little or no passage of fluid through pores.
Lagoon – Constructed basin lined with either very low permeability soils, or a synthetic material surrounded with berms.
Wastewater is treated via physical, chemical, and biological processes.
Methane (CH4) – A colorless, odorless, and flammable gas present in natural gas and formed by the anaerobic decomposition of
organic matter. In wastewater treatment, methane can be generated by the anaerobic digestion process as a byproduct
which can be used for cooking, heating or conversion to electricity.
Ped – In soils, refers to individual aggregates separated from each other by voids or natural areas of weakness.
Pretreatment – Any component or combination of components that provides treatment of wastewater prior to conveyance to a
further treatment and dispersal components or reuse. Often, this treatment is designed to meet primary, secondary,
tertiary, and/or disinfection treatment standards and may include grease traps for use in restaurants, lint traps for use
in laundry washing, and trash traps for use in public markets or where open sewers are prevalent.
Primary treatment – Physical treatment processes involving removal of particles, typically by settling and flotation with or
without the use of coagulants (for example, using a septic tank or anaerobic baffled reactor).
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) – The routine and emergency repairs and service that is required to keep wastewater
systems functioning properly, which should be performed by licensed or trained personnel using best practices.
Quaternary ammonia disinfectants – Solutions that contain nitrogen that are used to kill microorganisms, commonly used in
hospitals, restaurants and homes; excessive use of these can add significantly to the concentration of nutrients
in wastewater.
Scum – Layer of floating material on a liquid surface which may include fats, oil, and grease (FOG) or other solid wastes.
Secondary treatment – Biological and chemical treatment processes designed to remove organic matter.
Septage – Liquid and solid residuals (sludge) that accumulate and must ultimately be removed from pretreatment devices,
septic tanks, seepage pits, portable toilets, latrines or similar components.
Service provider – A public or private entity engaged in site evaluation, system design, construction, inspection, and operation
and maintenance. Includes those that collect, transport, and treat septage and fecal sludge.
Sewage – Untreated wastes consisting of blackwater and graywater from toilets, baths, sinks, lavatories, laundries, and other
plumbing fixtures in places of human habitation, employment, or recreation.
Sewer – Otherwise known as sewer collection systems, they are systems of piping, lift stations, and other structures that receive
and convey wastewater either by gravity or pressure.
Sludge – Precipitated solid matter with a highly mineralized content produced by domestic wastewater treatment processes.
10 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Wastewater Conversion Factor (WCF) – The percentage of potable water that enters a building that is converted to wastewater,
taking into account the volume of water that is utilized for outdoor activities, such as landscape or garden irrigation, or
other activities.

1.7 GUIDING CASE STUDY

To illustrate and link the key DWMS concepts and decision-making procedures described in this manual from a practical
perspective, an actual facility is presented below and used as a model throughout the manual. It shows how a facility owner
used the step-by-step process to make informed wastewater technology decisions and reveals the outcome of those decisions.

LORMA Medical Center, San Fernando City, Philippines

The LORMA Medical Center (LORMA) is located on the island of Luzon in the Northern Philippines, in the city of San
Fernando in the Province of La Union. It was founded by Dr. and Mrs. Rufino N. Macagba, Sr., who are both physicians.
It is a 136-bed facility with 450 workers. Data for this case study were collected through personal observation by the
author and interviews with Dr. Macagba in 2009, 2010, and 2012.
The LORMA Medical Facility is located near Carlatan Creek and the national highway. It is a good case study for the
following reasons:

• it is typical of many point sources of wastewater in developing countries;

• as there are no plans for a centralized wastewater system to serve this part of the city, a decentralized or onsite
wastewater management approach is required;
• LORMA can be considered a difficult site, with a relatively large wastewater flow, a nearby river that is subject to flooding
(Carlatan Creek), and not much land available for a DWMS; and
• it has food service and laundry washing activities, along with hazardous and medical waste generation.

Throughout this manual, the LORMA case study will be used to illustrate how the characteristics of the wastewater
generated by the hospital activities and the site where the wastewater is managed influenced the technology choices.
The reasons for selecting the chosen technologies also will be presented.

REFERENCES
Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (2009). CIDWT Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Glossary, 2nd edn,
2009. http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/Glossary2009.pdf (accessed 4 April 2013)
Sasse, L. (1998). DEWATS: Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries. http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/
reference_attachments/SASSE%201998%20DEWATS%20Decentralised%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20in%20Developing%
20Countries_0.pdf (accessed 5 October 2012)
National Environmental Services Center at West Virginia University (2002). Cover Graphic for: The US EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment
Manual (EPA625R-00008). http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/30004GXI.pdf (accessed 12 January 2013)
WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (2013). Progress on Sanitation and Drinking-Water – 2013
Update. http://www.childinfo.org/files/JMP2013Final_Eng.pdf (accessed 4 October 2012)
World Bank Water and Sanitation Program (2010). The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Sanitation in India. http://www.wsp.org/sites/
wsp.org/files/publications/wsp-esi-india.pdf (accessed 8 July 2012)
Chapter 2
Characterizing the source

This chapter will

• Introduce the various sources and compositions of wastewater common in developing country settings;
• Provide guidance on determining the daily design flow for DWMS;
• Introduce the concepts of wastewater strength and contaminant loading; and
• Present the step-by-step process of obtaining source data through field sampling and laboratory analysis.

Figure 2.1 Some of the many important residential, institutional, and commercial sources of wastewater in all types of
communities (Authors).
12 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

About Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 shows some images from daily life around Southeast Asia and Guyana, but they could be anywhere.
Slaughterhouses, food service, schools and housing blocks are in just about every community. This chapter will discuss
the key point that while these are common facilities that are integral to our daily lives, each has very different
wastewaters draining from them. Wastewater from a slaughterhouse for example, and from a home are so vastly
different, it is even difficult to make comparisons between them. What is interesting, however, is that while we can
encounter widely differing wastewater sources throughout our own community, there is not much difference between
common sources, such as public markets or housing blocks that may be located in very different geographic areas. A
restaurant in Kathmandu is likely to produce wastewater similar to that coming from a similar restaurant in San
Salvador. This fact can be very empowering for service providers that design or install wastewater systems and even
owners who want to improve their facility’s sanitation.
Case studies in wastewater management (and there are many in this manual) show how people addressed problems that
may be similar to your specific needs. With an Internet connection, information and lessons learned from an increasing
number of case studies are available with just the click of a mouse. Take a look at some of resources where case studies
and lessons learned are freely shared, as well as the references section at the end of each chapter:
• http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome – The ‘Wikipedia’ of water and sanitation hosted by
the International Water Association (the publisher);
• http://www.susana.org/ – The Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, with major funding by the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation and support from hundreds of other partners. Visit their forum, where you can ask an expert questions:
http://forum.susana.org/forum/;
• http://www.indiawaterportal.org/ – The India Water Portal, by Arghyam (www.arghyam.org), a grant-making
institution in India. Many case studies and resources are available that are applicable well beyond Indian borders;
• http://www.solutionsforwater.org/ – Solutions for Water is a product of the 6th World Water Forum. Take some time
to look around this user-friendly site;
• www.sswm.info/ – Sustainable Sanitation and Water Management. An excellent resource with many case studies and
tools related directly to the topics in this book. Refer to their resources for practical information and applicability.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The first set of inputs for Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems (DWMS) decision-making comes from
characterizing the wastewater source. Understanding the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the wastewater and
how these may change over time must guide the DWMS design process. Figure 2.2 shows an example of this change over
one day from one U.S. house. Wastewater is produced in varying flow rates (the height of each labeled area) and strengths,
ranging from weak to strong.

Figure 2.2 Flow pattern for sample U.S. single-family residence (labeled as CAP, for per capita) by hour over a typical one day
period (adapted by Onsite Sewage Treatment Program Staff, 2011).
 Characterizing the source 13

Chemical compositions and other components also vary over one day. These and other important source characteristics can
be grouped as follows:
• physical aspects: volumetric flow rate, color, temperature, and pH;
• biological contaminants: organic matter from human or animal waste, food-related matter, and microbes, some of
which are pathogenic; and
• chemical constituents: mostly originating from soaps, disinfectants, cleaners, and other products as well as various
animal/other wastes rich in nitrogen and phosphorus.
The physical, chemical, and biological aspects of wastewater vary widely from source to source and over time. This chapter
focuses on understanding the specific nature of these variables in any wastewater source. Wastewater source characterization
can be organized into separate tasks and begins by determining the composition of the wastewater.

2.2 WASTEWATER COMPOSITION

Wastewater from any given source may contain contaminants within the following categories:
• urine and feces from humans or animals (brown waste);
• waste products from processes like food manufacturing, food preparation and utensil washing that can discharge fat, oil,
and grease (FOG);
• organic chemicals or contaminants from commercial operations such as dry cleaning;
• inorganic chemicals or contaminants such as lint from laundry washing operations and compounds from metal plating,
leather tanning, or printing; and
• water, which may account for the majority of total flow. Wastewater effluent with 1000 mg/L of contaminants
(considered high strength) is 99.9 percent water!

2.2.1 Blackwater and Graywater

The composition of wastewater, especially from residential sources, can be thought of as either blackwater or graywater. Given
recent focus on more efficient and reuse-oriented management of human waste, programs that separate toilet waste
(blackwater) from sink, shower, and laundry washing water (graywater), and reuse that as shown in Figure 2.3 and through
other processes, will become more popular. While graywater may have less organic matter and pathogens than separated
blackwater or combined sewage, it still must be managed appropriately to avoid disease transmission or water source
contamination. In this manual, graywater is considered to be wastewater. Therefore, developing graywater management
programs requires the same attention in identifying the specific characteristics of the graywater source as well as the site
where it will be treated, dispersed, or reused.

Figure 2.3 Common reuse scenario for graywater from laundry, dishwashing and bathing wastewater flows (Lindstrom, 2000).
14 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

In many developing countries, especially in Asia and Africa, the common building practice is to separate the graywater
from the blackwater at the source through a separate network of pipes. Blackwater is then sent to septic tanks for primary
treatment, and graywater is plumbed directly to open drainage channels for direct discharge with no further treatment
(Figure 2.4). Such practices have two impacts:
• blackwater is concentrated in the septic tanks or other treatment units, making it more difficult to treat; and
• graywater is disposed of and not available for reuse, and instead can pond on the ground surface or in a ditch, after which
it quickly turns septic, generates odors, and potentially exposes humans to pathogens.

Figure 2.4 (a) and (b) Graywater separated at the source and discharged to open drainage ditch, Palembang, Indonesia
(Authors).

When properly treated, graywater can be used in many beneficial activities such as landscape irrigation and toilet
flushing. However, wastewater flow, strength, and the ability to derive beneficial reuse of graywater differs greatly based
on the source. For example, graywater from laundry or other flows that are heavily contaminated by soaps and
disinfectants may prove particularly difficult to treat. This is described in the discussion of the different wastewater sources
in the next section.

2.3 WASTEWATER SOURCE CATEGORIES

There are a wide range of wastewater sources typical of communities in developing countries. These may be grouped
as follows:
• residential housing, such as single-family houses, multi-family units, and subdivisions;
• public markets;
• slaughterhouses and other food processing operations;
• hospitals and health care facilities;
• restaurants, hotels, and resorts;
• offices, jails, and daily use institutional buildings, as well as those with less-regular use such as churches;
• schools, including those with food service and dormitories;
• commercial operations, such as beauty salons, automobile repair shops, metal fabricators, tanning and leather
operations; and
• small communities or commercial centers with combined sources.
Each source category listed above has its own norms related to the activities that generate wastewater. Schools, for example,
with their highly variable flows, present much different wastewater challenges than slaughterhouses, which may have more
regular flows, but higher concentrations of organic matter. Also, within each category there might be high variability.
Consider the differences between a business hotel near a city center and a beach resort with high seasonal flow rate
 Characterizing the source 15

variability. Due to the differences in wastewater from residential, commercial, or institutional operations, each facility must be
evaluated by itself within the DWMS planning process.
This evaluation involves looking at the flow rate, strength, composition, and variability of the wastewater. For existing
facilities, this may be straightforward if data are available from water meter readings or general water consumption. If that
information is not available, it often can be obtained from devices such as flow meters, and through sampling and analysis
to determine the specific concentration of various contaminants. For new construction, assessing the nature of the
wastewater that will be generated often requires relying on estimates and comparisons to similar existing facilities.
The following sections introduce the step-by-step process for conducting source characterization. However, the major
common categories of wastewater sources are first presented to help the reader identify general conditions to be aware of
when characterizing their source and ultimately using the information gathered to design DWMS.

2.3.1 Residential Housing

DWMS may be used for single-family houses, low-income housing blocks, mid-rise housing developments, and subdivisions
(developments of multiple single-family houses). Wastewater from residential housing can contain many types of inorganic
and organic chemical compounds that are introduced into the flow through daily activities. Even different single-family
homes or housing developments may have very different concentrations of organic matter and suspended solids in their
wastewater streams.
Also, wastewater flow rates from housing are strongly related to socioeconomic level, number of residents per unit,
geographic location, and the availability and cost of potable water. For example, subdivisions with a continuous water
supply (24/7 piped water) will usually have much higher flows than communities that haul water in buckets from shared
wells or collect rainwater for domestic use.

2.3.2 Public Markets

Typical public markets in developing countries include wastewater-generating activities that take place at different locations
throughout the market (Figure 2.5). These may include:
• stalls where meat processing, trimming, and butchering occur;
• areas where fish are descaled and cleaned;
• sections set aside for vegetable trimming and washing;
• locations where food is prepared and consumed and where utensil washing takes place; and
• public restrooms.

Figure 2.5 Vegetable section at Dong Hoi public market, Vietnam (Authors).

Public markets generate wastewater with higher volumes of organic matter than residential housing. Food preparation stalls
often significantly add to the wastewater strength by generating grease, solids, and organic matter. These stalls also produce
16 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

scraps that should be removed by trash traps. Wastewater systems for markets must be flexible enough to handle the fluctuating
flow, from almost no flow when the market is shut down, to peak flows on busy market days. Sewer systems for public markets
are often open, allowing storm water, trash, and debris to enter, which make treatment more difficult. A case study of how one
designer addressed these conditions for the Alabang public market in The Philippines is presented on the following page.

Case Study: Public market wastewater treatment in the Philippines

Wastewater treatment for public markets in the Philippines is complex due to the relatively high strength of the discharges
and variability of flows. The Alabang Public Market, located in Muntinlupa City, is one of the largest public markets in the
metropolitan area of Manila, with 1448 stalls and 24 hour-per-day operation. With support from the U.S. Agency for
International Development for planning and design, the city built a treatment facility in February 2006 that is functioning
well after 8 years. It combines anaerobic and aerobic treatment with filtration using cocopeat media to meet local
discharge standards. It also includes a water recycling system that allows reuse of the treated effluent for flushing
toilets, watering plants, and street cleaning.

Design Considerations
When the facility was designed, the market had about 4800 active vendors and workers and 4500 daily customers. The
average wastewater output was 210 cubic meters of sewage per day with a Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) of
around 600 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Suspended solids and fats, oil and grease (FOG) were also quite high. The
discharge flowed to the Alabang River which drains into Laguna Lake, with discharge limits of 50 mg/L BOD.

Site-Specific Challenges
Developing an effective wastewater management strategy for the Alabang Public Market required overcoming several
site-specific constraints:

• limited available space (160 m2) for treatment facilities, as the site was used as a parking lot and delivery area;
• a high relative elevation of the outfall in relation to the area designated for treatment (uphill slope); and
• unstable fill upon which to base the facilities (the site was an old landfill).
Due to the very limiting site conditions, a mechanized system was the most practical application. It was fully funded by a
small tariff added to the annual stall owner fees, which helped to achieve full cost recovery in 3 years. The facility uses an
anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) for primary treatment, an aerobic treatment system for secondary treatment, and a
cocopeat filtration system to further treat the wastewater for reuse, as shown in Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6 Alabang market wastewater treatment plant layout (Authors).

 Characterizing the source 17

For more information, refer to the article ‘Low-Cost Innovative Solutions for Treating Public Market Wastewater in the
Philippines: Deploying Hybrid Anaerobic and Aerobic Cocopeat Filtration Systems’, by Carlito Santos and David
Robbins (2011): http://www.rti.org/pubs/alabangmarketstudy.pdf.

2.3.3 Hospitals and Health Care Facilities

Medical facilities, which may have wastes from patient care, food service, laundry washing, and facility cleaning and
disinfection, have complex wastewater streams and treatment requirements. Medical wastes from treatment and operating
rooms, hazardous wastes from laboratories, and even radioactive wastes must be segregated and managed in separate
off-site waste management facilities, often requiring licenses from central government agencies. Food service and laundry
operations need appropriate pretreatment devices, including grease and lint traps. Additionally, the use of quaternary
ammonia disinfectants in large quantities may harm beneficial microbial growth in treatment systems, making biological
wastewater treatment less effective.

2.3.4 Slaughterhouses
Slaughterhouses generate very high-strength wastewater, with BOD levels sometimes reaching 10 to 20 times (or more) the
BOD levels of residential housing. Much of this is due to the blood, hair, FOG, and other organic wastes that flow down
the drain. Many slaughterhouses have livestock pens that are periodically flushed, randomly sending more high-strength
wastewater into the sewer system. Also, slaughterhouses often use high volumes of disinfectants, which can inhibit the
growth of microbes that are beneficial to certain wastewater treatment processes.
While these variable conditions mean that slaughterhouses typically require very robust DWMS, valuable byproducts can be
produced from slaughterhouse waste. For example, the collected blood can be used in animal feed, the waste digestion process
can be used to generate biogas, and the processed biosolids can be used as a soils amendment.

Slaughterhouses and regulatory authority

In many countries, slaughterhouses are regulated by national bodies that have their own requirements for sanitation
and wastewater management. In Kenya, sanitation at slaughterhouses is overseen by the Assistant Undersecretary for
Animal Wealth and Agriculture Affairs, under the Ministry of Environment and Water. In the Philippines, due to
decentralization, the responsibility for regulating slaughterhouse sanitation falls to local government units. In general,
understanding the legal requirements and identifying the regulatory authority is an important first step in achieving
sanitation compliance.

2.3.5 Hotels, Resorts, and Restaurants

With moderately high strength wastewater and flow variability, the hospitality industry presents challenges for DWMS.
The food service and laundry operations typical of these facilities require more pretreatment units than for residential
housing. Daily and seasonal flow variability also may be greater and may depend on the type of the dining or boarding
establishment. Table 2.1 shows how the type of food service establishment relates to dining interval and flow rate and
variability, based in large part on the extent and method of dishwashing.
Hotels and resorts have different flow variability than restaurants because of peak and low seasons. Their grease and
lint management needs are very case-specific. They also have to be concerned about sanitation for different reasons.
In many locations, beachside hotels and resorts discharge wastewater with minimal treatment directly into the sea.
However, this can be damaging to the establishment if guests smell odors or see discharge from poor wastewater
management or if they believe recreational waters are contaminated. For this reason, resort owners are often easy to
convince of the benefits of proper wastewater management and are frequently early adopters and supporters of DWMS
programs.
18 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Table 2.1 Restaurant classification and related dining intervals and service levels.

Establishment Average dining Notes

type interval
Fast food 30–45 minutes Single-serve dishes and utensils reduce
dishwashing and flow. Typically greatest amount
of grease per customer.
Restaurant 60 minutes Full dish and utensil washing. Typically greatest
amount of wastewater generated per customer.
Leisure dining or 90–120 minutes Full service with bar likely. Peaks in flows based
supper club on weekly or less-frequent events. Generally
highest level of flow variability per customer.

2.3.6 Office, Daily use, and Less Regular-use Buildings

Wastewater from office buildings is generally relatively low-strength with regular and predictable flows. Office buildings
typically experience high flows during normal working hours. Office wastewater flows are often calculated using the
number of workers per shift and the number of shifts in a 24-hour period. Also included in the calculation would be the
presence or absence of (1) food service (and if it is full service with utensil washing), (2) showers, and (3) meeting rooms
(where outside guests may be coming in). Churches, mosques and other places of worship good examples of less
regular-use facilities that also have predictable daily and weekly flows. Their flows greatly contrast those of traditional
work facilities, due to the nature of typical worship services that are held throughout the week.

2.3.7 Schools
Schools have highly variable flows and present challenging wastewater management problems. The wastewater
discharged during the average school day may be the typical flow, but the system must also be able to handle low flows
during weekends and peak flows during special events. Flow equalization methods, which use tanks and pumps to moderate
peak flows by averaging them out over time as described in Section 2.6.1, may help address this issue. Also, the systems
must be able to restart quickly after lengthy no-flow conditions during summer vacation. Aside from flow concerns, schools
with larger grounds may consider reuse programs where the treated and nutrient-rich effluent can be used for landscape irrigation.

2.3.8 Other Commercial Facilities

Many other commercial, agricultural and industrial facilities generate wastewater. Common sources may include the
following:

• beauty salons;
• automotive repair and fueling stations;
• car washes;
• tanneries and leather goods manufacturing;
• confined animal feeding operations; and
• dental and jewelry repair services.

Creating DWMS for these facilities requires careful source characterization to properly assess flow volume, strength,
variability, and especially unique and potentially very toxic chemical constituents. Comparing these facilities with similar
operations and consulting industry-specific trade groups may help to provide useful information for estimating baseline
wastewater-related data.

2.3.9 Community Wastewater Systems

Community wastewater management systems receive flows from multiple sources that may include residential and/or
commercial discharges, often along with storm water. Wastewater flows may be separated from storm water in sanitary
sewers, or comingled with storm water in combined sewers, which is frequently the case in developing country settings.
When combined sewers are connected to treatment works, they are often equipped with combined sewer overflows, which
are designed to discharge into surface waters during significant storm events when flow levels exceed treatment facilities’
 Characterizing the source 19

design flow. In these cases the diluted wastewater must still meet regulatory standards. Community sewerage projects often use
a multi-step process for treating wastewater. This includes pretreatment devices installed at targeted businesses, primary
treatment devices such as interceptor or septic tanks at individual homes and buildings, and secondary treatment and
disinfection mechanisms to further process the wastewater.
Community-based systems are presented here as they still may fall within the definition of DWMS. The case study
provided below introduces an important model of how one city is addressing unregulated wastewater flows from existing
residential areas.

Interceptor tank with pump station, San Fernando City, Philippines

An interceptor form of sewage collection (Figure 2.7) serves as the community DWMS for approximately 55 homes and
small shops within San Fernando City. Combined storm water and sewage that flows through the community drainage
ditch are captured in a concrete tank and pumped to the treatment facility. The wastewater is low strength with high
hydraulic loading and is controlled by a storm water overflow. During high flows, diluted wastewater and storm water
overflow into the river. During low flows, all of the wastewater is collected and treated. This configuration was more
feasible than installing new sewer lines from existing sources.

Figure 2.7 Community-based DWMS using EcoTankTM interceptor tank followed by upflow anaerobic filter, San Fernando
City, Philippines (Authors).

This interceptor system uses a pump and capture basin to send the wastewater to the treatment tank (the EcoTank).
During normal conditions, the entire combined wastewater and storm water flow is pumped to the EcoTank, a septic
tank like-unit made by Premier Products Co. of Thailand. The EcoTank drains to a secondary treatment gravel filter.
During storm conditions, the tank is bypassed and wastewater discharges directly to the river. Dilution of the sewage
meets all regulatory standards during discharge events. This system is a good model for capturing and treating
wastewater from un-sewered areas and shows the value of interceptor sewerage systems, which was recognized by
city leaders, who are planning to use this model in other communities.

2.4 DETERMINING THE DESIGN FLOW

Determining the design flow is key to the DWMS planning process, as it influences the size of all components for sewer
collection, treatment, dispersal, and reuse or discharge. The three methods for determining the design flow, described in the
following sections, are as follows:
(1) measuring the flow of an existing facility by using actual water consumption data from water meters or other
measuring devices such as buckets, and adjusting it through a wastewater conversion factor;
(2) comparing a proposed source’s flow with known data from an existing similar facility; and
(3) using standard tables and values for wastewater generation for the unit processes occurring at the facility.
20 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

2.4.1 Measuring Flow

The first option for determining the design flow for existing facilities that are connected to metered water supply systems is
relatively easy. For metered systems, the design flow is the average daily water consumption (daily flow rate) during peak
flow conditions for a consecutive 7-day period. If outdoor piped water-using activities such as irrigation and car washing
are common, this figure is then adjusted by applying a wastewater conversion factor (WCF) to account for water received
but not converted to wastewater.
It is recommended that the peak 7-day period daily flow rate be obtained from a minimum of 3 months of data during peak
usage. Given that design flows should be conservative, calculating for peak flows helps to ensure that wastewater is properly
managed during times of the highest usage. Peak flow estimates may be made more precise by following the engineering
convention of determining 1- and 4-hour peak loads. In general, the basic procedure for determining the average (7-day
peak) daily water consumption requires taking daily meter readings for the three month period and writing them on a form.
Including the concept of capacity (occupancy), and dividing the water consumption by that fraction as shown in Table 2.2,
provides the adjusted water consumption data needed to derive the 7-day averages.

Table 2.2 Example procedure for determining peak 7-day water consumption from a
hypothetical source.

Day Water Percent capacity of Adjusted water Running

consumption facility at the time of consumption at 100 7-day
(cubic meters) measurement (%) percent capacity average
1 3.5 75 4.7 (from 3.5/0.75)
2 4 80 5.0
3 4 80 5.0
4 4.2 85 4.9
5 5 90 5.6
6 5 90 5.6
7 6 95 6.3 5.3
8 5.5 92 6.0 5.5

Guidelines for determining design flow from average peak 7-day water
consumption data

• Always take the water meter readings at the same time each day.
• Before accepting the peak 7-day average water consumption figure flow rate (the highest value in the ‘Running 7-day
average” column) as the design flow, as a check to verify that it is appropriate, determine the average flow during the
overall period tested (3-month minimum). The average flow should not exceed 70 percent of the peak 7-day average. If it
does exceed that, adjust the preliminary peak value to meet the 70 percent condition by taking it to be the product of the
average 3-month flow and (10/7). Finally, apply the appropriate WCF value as instructed in Section 2.4.1.1. below.

For facilities without a metered water service, the methodology for calculating the design flow is more difficult. It requires
carefully looking at water-consuming activities in the facility, estimating the volume of water consumed during that activity,
multiplying that by the number of times that activity is performed during a typical day in the peak month, and summing those
values for all activities to get total daily flow. For example, if a pour flush toilet is to be connected to the DWMS, determining
the volume of water used during each flush and multiplying by the number of flushes in a day (for all of the facilities’ toilets)
provides the daily flush volume, a major factor in most DWMS. While this method is less accurate than using water meter data,
it is simple as it does not require using the Wastewater Conversion Factor, described below.
 Characterizing the source 21

2.4.1.1 The Wastewater Conversion Factor

The WCF assesses how much of the total water entering a facility is actually converted to wastewater that flows or would
flow to a DWMS. For facilities with piped water under pressure, this generally relates to the percentage of water use for
activities that occur outdoors, such as landscape watering, garden irrigation, or vehicle washing. If these are frequent
activities, the system planner should estimate the WCF in order to decrease the design flow to reflect how much of the
initial metered flow does not enter the building sewer. This allows for the installation of smaller, more-appropriate and
cost-effective installations.
The simple calculation for finding the WCF (for the peak 7-day period) is presented below. Once obtained, multiply it by the
7-day peak average flow to derive the design flow:

(Total Weekly Metered Water [m3] − Water Consumed for Outdoor Purposes [m3]) × 100%/Total Weekly Metered Water [m3] = WCF.

In most situations, calculating a WCF is advisable, rather than using standard values, because WCFs are based on
site-specific economic and climate conditions. If the site user does not use much piped water for watering the garden or
washing the car – two major examples of outdoor use – most of the measured flow will be converted to wastewater,
meaning the design flow is very close or equal to the measured flow. The same can be true even if the site has a demand
for outdoor water use, because if the climate is cool and wet, then outdoor watering will be minimized.
This weather effect was found in a U.S. residential water-use study across 12 cities and over 1000 user accounts. For
communities in hotter, drier climates, outdoor water consumption came to between 59 percent and 67 percent of total
consumption, while that range was 22 percent to 38 percent for homes within cooler, wetter climates. Overall, the average
percentage of metered water that went towards outdoor use in the study sample was 58 percent (Mayer et al., 1999). This
shows how the WCF – calculated here as 1 minus 0.58, which gives 0.42 – can be very high and greatly decrease design
flows compared to the measured flows, putting much less of a burden on a proposed DWMS.
Calculating this important WCF term is simple and can be done quickly following the procedure shown in Table 2.3. The
sample outdoor water consumption tracking table shows how data can be entered and multiplied to derive liters per activity
values. Adding these up for the peak 7-day period sample used in Table 2.2 and dividing by 1000 to get cubic meters (the
final volume unit) for weekly activities gives the ‘Water Consumed for Outdoor Purposes’ value, which is the only
unknown in the WCF equation.

Table 2.3 Monthly activity log for tracking outdoor water consumption.

Date Activity Duration Measured or Estimated

estimated flow consumption
(L per minute) (L per activity)
2 March Washing the car 30 minutes 10 300
5 March Irrigating the landscaping 45 minutes 10 450
8 March Irrigating the garden 25 minutes 10 250

2.4.2 Gathering and Applying Data from Similar Projects

A second option can be used if actual water consumption data are absent. This quick method is to estimate design flow by
researching similar facilities to see if their water consumption is metered and can offer good estimates. Take care to find
the proper comparison. Look for the numbers of family members or patrons served, the relative water demand, the flow
changes over time, and other aspects of water use. If the comparison system was effectively planned, established,
evaluated, and monitored, studying the system for its flow characteristics could add more value than just analyzing the
water meter readings or using values from standard tables, which is described below.

2.4.3 Using Standard Wastewater Generation Value Tables

The third method of determining the design flow for DWMS is using standard tables that estimate wastewater generation per
unit, such as the number of bedrooms in a residential house, number of employees in a shopping center, or number of occupants
in a hotel. While actual values for wastewater generation can be significantly different from one location to the next, or even
22 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

between similar facilities in the same location, standard tables may provide a strong basis for customizing values for local
conditions. Table 2.4 provides U.S. standard wastewater generation values in liters per unit for typical residential and
non-residential applications. These values may or may not reflect actual flows in developing country settings, but represent
a good starting point.

Table 2.4 Wastewater generation by activity (adapted from Crites & Tchobanoglous, 1998).

Facility Unit Range Typical

(liters/day) (liters/day)
Airport Passenger 8–15 11
Apartment house Person 150–300 190
Auto service center Vehicle served 30–57 45
Bar Customer 4–19 11
Boarding house Person 95–230 150
Department store Toilet 1500–2300 1900
Hospital/medical Bed 470–910 630
Hospital/medical Employee 19–57 38
Hotel Guest 150–230 190
Industrial building Employee 26–61 49
(sanitary waste only)
Laundry Machine 1700–2500 2100
Office Employee 26–61 49
Public toilet User 11–23 19
Restaurant (per meal) Meal served 8–15 11
School Student 38–76 57
Shopping center Employee 26–49 38
Theater Seat 8–15 11

Using standard values to determine wastewater volume

• When using standard tables for wastewater generation, such as Table 2.4, note that the wastewater conversion factor is
already built in, as are short term peaking factors. Simply multiply the number of units by flow per unit, and sum these
values, to calculate the design flow.
• Local governments may have good sources of data on water consumption or wastewater generation. Discuss the
project with local regulatory officials and determine if they have useful data that can be applied to the project.

2.5 ASSESSING WASTEWATER STRENGTH AND ORGANIC CONCENTRATION

Wastewater strength is based on the concentration of several parameters. While commercial or industrial wastewater sources
may contain high levels of chemical contaminants or suspended solids, the typical concern of wastewater strength is organic
loading. Although there are various definitions of strong and weak wastewater, which are all relative to the wastewater source
and local regulation context, the values shown in Table 2.5 offer good baseline values.
The table shows values taken from numerous municipal wastewater studies in the United States. The table is useful for
comparing wastewater strength from a project to these average values, and it may suggest problems or strategies for
improved management. For example, having weaker than average wastewater may indicate excessive infiltration or the
entry of excessive potable water into the wastewater (perhaps from leaky toilets). Excessively strong wastewater compared
with average values may indicate a need to implement pretreatment technologies to reduce organic matter at the source.
 Characterizing the source 23

Standards for relative strength of wastewater also can be used to identify appropriate technologies. For example, septic tanks
are most applicable for low- to medium-strength wastewaters, while ABRs might be a better choice for medium- or
high-strength flows.

Table 2.5 U.S. typical municipal wastewater characteristics, with values in mg/L
(adapted from National Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1997).

Parameter Weak Medium Strong

BOD5 110 220 400
TSS 100 220 350
Nitrogen (N) 20 40 85
Phosphorus (P) 4 8 15

Determining organic loading is also important because it is often used in determining system sizing, and it can limit
the effectiveness of many technologies, which are best used for wastewaters with certain BOD ranges. As an example, for
sewage lagoons, BOD volumetric and surface area loading rates are used as key sizing parameters. Underestimating
organic loading can result in mistaken pond sizing and total system failure. To avoid this, it is necessary to properly
estimate organic loading levels. As with assessing design flow, this can be done either by preparing wastewater samples for
BOD laboratory analysis, using standard values, or applying data obtained from operators of similar facilities.
For existing facilities, laboratory analysis for BOD5 can be performed following the sampling and analysis
guidelines provided in later sections. For new facilities, identifying a similar facility and sampling its wastewater for
BOD can provide useful information. If both of these methods are not feasible, using standard values related to
facility units (Table 2.6) can provide useful information. The values in the table can be used to estimate BOD concentration
as follows:

mg Table 2.6 value ∗ number of units ∗ 1000 mg/g
BOD5 =

L Flow L
d

Table 2.6 Typical BOD5 loadings at various types of facilities

(adapted from Onsite Sewage Treatment Program Staff, 2011).

Type of facility BOD (g/unit/day)

Apartment block 79.5/housing unit
Boarding house 63.6/person
Church, no kitchen 9.1/seat
Country club 94.5/member
Dwelling, single family 77.3/person
Employee, additional 18.2/employee
Factory, no showers 33.2/employee
Factory, with showers 37.7/employee
Hospital 235.5/bed
Hotel 56.8/room
Office building, no food 22.7/employee
Restaurant 9.5/customer
Restaurant, with bar 14.1/customer
School, with cafeteria 19.1/student
Shopping center, no food 22.7/employee
Stores 378.2/toilet room
Theater 4.5/seat
24 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Checking in with LORMA – Estimating design flow and organic loading

Because water meter and BOD5 data were not available for estimating flow, standard values were used from Tables 2.4
and 2.6 to estimate organic loading at LORMA. LORMA is a modern hospital, so values from standard tables were used
without adjustment, but were taken from the low end of the range for design flow. Design flow (in L/d) and organic
loading were calculated as follows:
19 L/employee/d (Table 2.4) * 450 workers = 8850 L/d;
470 L/bed/d (Table 2.4) * 136 beds = 63,920 L/d;
Total Daily Design Flow = 72,770 L/d.
18.2 g BOD5/employee/d (Table 2.6) * 450 workers * 1000 mg/g/72,770 L/d = 113 mg BOD5/L;
235.5 g BOD5/bed/d (Table 2.6) * 136 beds * 1000 mg/g/72,770 L/d = 440 mg BOD5/L;
Total Daily Organic Loading = 553 mg BOD5/L.

2.6 QUANTIFYING FLOW VARIABILITY

Flow variability is an important consideration in DWMS technology selection and a crucial factor in the source characterization
process. Hotels, resorts, and schools are good examples of how wastewater flow volumes can change dramatically based on the
day of the week, season, special events, or holidays. The variability can be identified by studying water meter readings if
available, or through methods referenced above to determine design flow. This information will help designers choose
appropriate technologies or strategies that may be used to equalize the flow to reduce peaks and enable designs based on
average flow conditions.

2.6.1 Flow Equalization

Flow equalization refers to the usage of large tanks and effluent pumps to collect, store, and evenly discharge timed doses of
wastewater to DWMS components at regular intervals. This is often beneficial because it:
• allows designers to base system designs on average rather than peak flows; and
• uniform flow conditions are easier to treat, resulting in better performance of treatment equipment.

Flow equalization example for a church

As with schools, churches or other places of worship may have distinct wastewater flow patterns during the week. Notice
the difference in weekday versus weekend flows in the example below. All but the 3 days listed have flows close to zero. The
flows can be equalized as follows:

Day Attendance Daily Flow

Sunday 200 members 4000 L
Wednesday 50 members 1000 L
Saturday 100 members 2000 L

Weekly total = 7000 L

Equalization cycle = 1 week (7 days)

Equalized daily flow = 7000 L/7 days = 1000 L/d

Assuming that this is the typical 7-day period for the church, the design flow equals 1000 L/d. Compare this with designing
for the peak flow of 4000 L/d. Having the ability to design septic tanks and other DWMS components for the average flow, in
this case 1000 liters per day, compared to the peak flow of 4000 L/d, requires a much smaller and cheaper DWMS, even
when considering the cost of the storage tank and the pump.
 Characterizing the source 25

Equalization is typically used for flows that have large variability throughout the day or week. The concepts can sometimes
be applied on a much larger scale for flows with seasonal variability. For example, storage ponds can capture the entire
wastewater flow from the peak season and release it evenly over the remaining low- or no-flow months. Depending upon
the goal of the system, especially if the treated effluent is intended to be reused for irrigation, this scenario may be
desirable as effluent can be stored for use during the growing season.
Flow equalization may be incorporated into a number of designs. However, estimating the degree of flow variability
based on design flow data obtained earlier in the source evaluation process is first required. An example of how design
flow and flow equalization are related is given below, while further technological considerations for flow equalization are
provided in Chapter 4.

2.7 NUTRIENTS IN WASTEWATER

Nutrients are molecules that bacteria, plants, and animals need to live and grow. In wastewater, nutrients such as nitrogen (N)
and phosphorus (P) can help support the growth of the beneficial microorganisms that accomplish the treatment process.
However, high levels of certain nutrients in wastewater can pollute aquifers and surface waters, which can have significant
health impacts on those who rely upon them for domestic needs.
Because nutrients are found in wastewater and are also required for plant growth, it is no surprise that treated wastewater is
often used as an important source of nutrients for agricultural purposes. When safely applied, treated wastewater effluent can
supplement or replace chemical fertilizers. In a world with rapidly increasing populations, the link between recycling nutrients
from wastewater and achieving food security will likely become even stronger. Therefore, recycling the nutrient-rich treated
effluent from wastewater is an important strategy for DWMS. Especially in agricultural settings, this could be a good reason or
motivating factor that might encourage people to invest in the installation of a wastewater system.

2.7.1 Nitrogen
Urine is a major source of N in wastewater, which when discharged is almost completely in the form of ammonia.
When ammonia mixes with atmospheric or soil oxygen, it can be converted into nitrate through a microbial process
called nitrification. While some of the nitrates are naturally consumed through another microbial process called
denitrification, nitrate accumulation in aquifers can occur when uncontrolled discharge of wastewater effluent enters
the aquifer.
Nitrate contamination of aquifers that are used for drinking water can lead to serious health concerns. High nitrate
concentrations in drinking water have been linked to certain forms of cancer, as well as to the disease known as
methemoglobinemia (blue baby syndrome). For this reason, appropriate setbacks (minimum horizontal and vertical
distances) between wastewater discharge points and wells and aquifers must be maintained.
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, which is the sum of ammonia-nitrogen plus organically bound nitrogen, is often associated with
quaternary ammonia disinfectants used in large quantities in some commercial facilities. This occurrence presents another
concern that can be a very important consideration in DWMS design.

2.7.2 Phosphorus
Phosphorus (P) is required for the life cycle of aquatic plants, such as algae, which can be either a health risk to aquatic life or
simply unattractive to those living near or using waterways. In the case of blue-green algae, toxic byproducts can be generated.
This creates human health issues if they are growing in water that is used for drinking, and harms species living in the
water bodies.
P from detergents and fertilizers and N from fertilizers and human waste both present large challenges for wastewater
managers worldwide. The widespread usage of N and P, and the negative effects on ecosystems from improper treatment
or dispersal, make them a key consideration in the DWMS planning process. However, many governments in developing
countries have yet to implement nutrient standards. Once they do, a large percentage of DWMS managers will have to
quantify and reduce the high levels of these nutrients in their systems to meet regulatory standards and protect public
health. However, determining the types and levels of nutrients in treated effluent can come in handy in and of itself,
especially if agricultural reuse is planned.

More information about N and P in wastewater, and about the general processes for removing them can be found in
Sasse (1998), pp. 50–52 and 62–63.
26 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Planning DWMS for nutrient reduction

Designers of DWMS in clean environments, near important fisheries, or where groundwater is used for potable water must
account for nutrient concentrations in the treated effluent when planning dispersal, discharge or reuse activities. Removing
nutrients from the effluent through uptake in agricultural or landscape plants may be the best and most cost-effective
control measure. Consider the following:
• Several DWMS technologies can reduce nutrient loads, and even convert some of them into plant biomass, as
described in Chapter 4.
• Land application of properly treated wastewater effluent must be carefully monitored to verify that the proper amount is
being applied, and that it does not run off, which could easily contaminate surface waters.

Case Study – Nutrient recycling at Putatan Elementary School, Muntinlupa City, The
Philippines

Wastewater from Putatan Elementary School in The Philippines is first treated in a cocopeat bioreactor system. Once
treated, the effluent is discharged into the garden to irrigate a variety of food and non-food crops (Figure 2.8). The
students and staff noticed immediately that the plants that received the treated effluent grew much faster and were
much healthier than those that received potable water. According to J.E.T. Pabilonia, principal researcher on the
cocopeat project, ‘Recycling the nutrients in wastewater effluent by irrigating plants in moderate levels is one way to
achieve two goals: keeping the nutrient pollution out of the environment, and using it to produce valuable crops’.

Figure 2.8 J.E.T. Pabilonia at the Putatan Elementary School wastewater demonstration project, Muntinlupa, Philippines
(Authors).

2.8 OTHER WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS

Three additional wastewater pollutants must be considered when designing DWMS for commercial facilities. These are fats,
oils and grease from food service or food processing facilities; lint from commercial laundries; and trash, which may include
solid waste entering the waste stream, or vegetable-preparation, meat trimming, or fish scaling waste typically generated at
public markets. These topics are further described below and in the section on pre-treatment technologies in Chapter 4.
 Characterizing the source 27

2.8.1 Fats, Oils, and Grease

Fats, oil and grease (FOG) are common pollutants in wastewater. If left unchecked, FOG deposits can lead to clogging and
fouling of downstream sewers and wastewater management equipment. Organized community-based programs that
encourage FOG separation and collection can collect and provide commercial quantities of this important feedstock used
for manufacturing goods including tallow and biodiesel. Also, the collected FOG can be used directly as a fuel source for
heating or cooking. To manage FOG, grease traps should be used in any business that prepares or manufactures food, or
where utensil washing occurs, such as restaurants, hospitals, resorts, and schools.

2.8.2 Lint
Lint is composed of particles of textile fibers primarily from cotton, wool, and linen. During clothes-washing, lint builds up in
the wash water and can clog downstream drainage pipes and wastewater treatment equipment. In commercial laundry
operations, lint accumulation can make up a significant volume of the sludge in septic tanks. Removal of lint at the source
through lint traps is a best management practice. Use lint traps in any business that conducts laundry washing including
public laundry facilities, hospitals, hotels, and boarding schools.

2.8.3 Trash
In the context of wastewater treatment, trash is a broad category of solid waste that may end up in the sewer system, either
through toilets or open sewer channels. Businesses or other institutions that generate solid debris should use solids
separators to trap the materials before they can enter the sewer line. Public markets are good examples where operations
related to vegetable, and meat and fish sales can generate high volumes of solids in the wastewater. Specially designed
in-line solids or trash traps should be used for such facilities.

2.9 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Commercial wastewater dischargers may be required to pretreat wastewater before discharge into the collection system for a
DWMS due to extreme conditions related to physical or chemical properties of their wastewater. Proper pretreatment to address
such properties (and the Section 2.8 constituents) is necessary because it:
• protects the environment, public health, and safety;
• provides safe working conditions for sewer utility workers;
• protects wastewater, collection, and treatment facilities from damage due to accidental or deliberate discharge of
pollutants;
• prevents the introduction of substances that would block or obstruct the collection system;
• prevents the introduction of pollutants into the collection system, which would interfere with the wastewater treatment
process or pass through the plant and pose a health threat; and
• improves the opportunity to reclaim and recycle municipal wastewater and biosolids.
The following sections provide related guidance for commercial and industrial dischargers to DWMS that relates to what are
often the most problematic physical and chemical conditions in certain wastewaters: temperature, pH and the presence of
industry-specific chemicals.

2.9.1 Temperature
The temperature of wastewater influent is a major factor in the rate of DWMS biological function. At higher ambient
temperatures, microbial activity accelerates, which means a greater ability to break down pollutants. This improves the
functioning of biological DWMS filtration methods. Cold temperatures decrease microbial activity and lengthen the amount
of time that wastewater must undergo biological processing. Designers of wastewater systems based in cold or temperate
climates must take this factor into consideration. Sewage lagoons and anaerobic digesters are good examples. A lagoon
system that might require 45 days to achieve proper treatment in a tropical climate might require 60–90 days in temperate
or cold climates. Follow design guidance for temperature variability, which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.

2.9.2 The pH Level

The acidity or basicity of a liquid is defined as its pH, which ranges from the most acidic value of zero to the most
basic value of 14. Seven, the pH of water, is considered neutral. Understanding how pH affects biological wastewater
28 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

treatment processes, specifically the bacteria that degrade organic matter, solids, and pathogens, is important to the success
of those systems. Those bacteria best operate at a pH around 7. However, wastewater from certain commercial and
industrial sources may have discharges with extreme pH values, which can slow down microbial activity and greatly
decrease treatment performance. In some cases, having a pH greater than 7 is actually advantageous to the treatment
process. One example is where pH values of around 8.0 are optimal for nitrification to occur, which is often carefully
planned for wastewater management where N is a major concern. However, in general pretreatment strategies for acidic
or basic wastewater center on neutralization, which is the addition of enough acids or bases to drive the pH of the
wastewater to as close to 7.0 as possible. Lime is often used as a buffering agent to help acidic solutions reach more
neutral pH values.
The pH level is tested by dipping a handheld pH meter or test strip into the water and observing the value from the meter or
the color change on the test strip that is then compared to a pH scale. For residential-type wastewater, typical monitoring
includes pH testing, which might help to identify if household chemicals are being used excessively and discharged down
the drain. For commercial flows, careful monitoring of pH can help spot problems such as microbial die-off before they
become very serious and lead to poor DWMS performance.

2.9.3 Problematic Chemical Constituents in Wastewater

Wastewater system planners and operators must also be careful of chemical discharges containing elements besides N and
P. Products such as bleach, livestock-injected growth hormones, and other commercial or agricultural substances can also
harm or kill the microbes that drive biological wastewater processes occurring within DWMS technologies such as
biofilters and biodigesters.
Chemicals from commercial laundry operations, metal plating, and leather tanning pose major threats to DWMS function.
Dry-cleaning facilities may use chemicals that can be categorized as acids, bases, oxidizers, solvents, or other organics. All of
these can be toxic to microbes. In some cases, they should not mix with one another, as mixing could cause adverse reactions or
even explosions, such as when chlorine and ammonia combine. Proper operation of these facilities requires completely
separating these chemical wastes from the rest of the wastewater stream.
The most basic chemical contamination of biological wastewater treatment is due to the antibacterial effects of chlorine, the
major component of bleach. Anaerobic systems such as septic tanks and anaerobic baffled reactors often need to neutralize
typical amounts of household bleach used in residential settings. However, facilities that use larger amounts of
disinfectants, such as hospitals, health care centers, and even slaughterhouses, may need to use appropriate pretreatment
devices to protect downstream treatment systems.

2.10 MICROBIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are many types of microorganisms in wastewater. Some are responsible for the breakdown of organic matter in the
wastewater and are considered beneficial to the wastewater treatment process. Others are pathogenic or potentially
pathogenic, and can pose significant risks to public and environmental health in developing countries. This suggests the
need to evaluate the concentrations of pathogenic microorganisms in the raw wastewater as well as the allowable
concentrations based on discharge and effluent reuse activities (examples shown in Section 4.9.1) to ensure that appropriate
treatment technologies are utilized.
Pathogenic microorganisms may include viruses, bacteria, protozoan parasites, helminths, fungi, and algae, most of which
are shed in human feces. As it would be difficult and costly to quantify each pathogen in a wastewater sample, investigators
use indicator organisms to determine if water or wastewater contains human sewage and the concentration of potentially
pathogenic organisms. Also, many developing countries have adopted standards for the discharge or reuse of treated
effluent, which are also based on these indicator organisms.
In addition to helminths and rotavirus, which are used within the World Health Organization’s 2006 Guidelines for
the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Graywater, as described in Section 4.9.1, one or more of the three bacterial
indicators listed below are often used for setting wastewater effluent or reuse standards:
• Total coliform bacteria: a broad group of bacteria that are not typically dangerous to human health, but are not naturally
present in groundwater. Presence of total coliform bacteria is an indication that more harmful organisms may be present;
• Fecal coliform bacteria: a subset of total coliforms as shown in Figure 2.9 that can indicate recent fecal
contamination; and
• Escherichia coli bacteria: a subset of fecal coliforms as shown in Figure 2.9 that usually indicates recent fecal
contamination.
 Characterizing the source 29

Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform and E. Coli

Total Coliform
(Environmental Contaminaon)

Fecal Coliform & E. coli

(Fecal Contaminaon)
E. coli

E. coli 0157H7

Figure 2.9 Model showing relationships between coliform indicators (adapted from Washington State Department of Health,
2013).

Compartment Bag Test kits for E. coli sampling – innovative rapid and low cost
microbiological testing for drinking water and low-strength wastewater

The Aquagenx Compartment Bag Test (CBT) (Figure 2.10) is an easy to use and affordable test kit for determining the
concentration of E. coli in water. It is hand-held, safe, and requires no laboratory or expensive incubator equipment –
needed to raise the liquid’s temperature to maximize pathogen replication for ease of counting – in temperate or tropical
conditions. It just requires ambient temperature incubation, after which the number and order of compartments (filled in
with varying volumes of water) that turn blue are ‘read’ to determine Most Probable Number of E. coli.

Figure 2.10 Worker in Liberia first prepares samples for E. coli analysis using the CBT, and then scores results to obtain
the most probable number (MPN) of E. coli bacteria (Aquagenx, 2013).

A United States Agency for International Development pilot study with the CBT across diverse geographical areas
(coast, jungle, and mountains) determined that CBT results are not statistically different when compared to other
standard methods of E. coli detection and quantification. The test can be used at the household level, for water utilities
to determine the effectiveness of their disinfection programs, and for testing reclaimed water intended for agricultural
purposes or weak wastewater (by using a series of dilutions).

For more information, visit Aquagenx online at: http://www.aquagenx.com/

30 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Although it is certainly easier to sample only these fecal indicators rather than test for every potential pathogen of public and
environmental health importance, this is not to say that such sampling is simple. The following discussion will describe the
basics of the general process, while the below case study offers one example of an increasingly-used simple device
designed for sampling waters in low-resource settings.

2.11 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

The sections above present several methods for assessing wastewater flow, strength, and concentration of common pollutants
typically found in wastewater. It is often useful, especially in larger systems, to collect actual data on wastewater flow, strength
and pollutant loading to have a more accurate basis for making design decisions. This can be done through sampling and
laboratory analysis. While this may sound simple, several pitfalls must be avoided to obtain accurate and usable data. This
section describes sampling and analysis strategies that DWMS designers should consider using to accurately characterize
their wastewater sources.
Given that field sampling and laboratory analysis are expensive, care must be taken to ensure that the funds are spent wisely
and that the generated data is not only accurate, but useful. To maximize the effectiveness of the data collection activities, the
following steps will be described:
(1) preparing a sampling plan;
(2) collecting representative samples;
(3) handling and preserving samples properly;
(4) using appropriate chain-of-custody and sample identification procedures; and
(5) assuring quality of the procedures in the field.

2.11.1 Preparing a Sampling Plan

The sampling plan is a written document that describes:
• why the samples are required;
• what information will be obtained;
• who will collect the samples in the field, and how and when he or she will do so;
• where the samples will be taken to for analysis; and
• how samples will be safely preserved and transported to the laboratory.
The purpose of the sampling plan, which should be prepared regardless of the size of the sampling project, is to ensure that all
aspects of the sampling events are properly considered. This achieves the ultimate goal, which is to safely collect representative
samples of the wastewater to be monitored, properly preserve the samples, and get them to the laboratory within the required
hold times.

Coordinating sampling with the selected laboratory

The laboratory that will be responsible for conducting the analysis should be involved at the earliest stages of the planning
for the sampling event. The laboratory should provide the bottles, preservatives, labels, and forms. Often, the laboratory
can provide trained sampling personnel for a small fee. For the best results, use a laboratory licensed by a local or national
regulatory agency. Verify with the laboratory each aspect of the sampling plan to assure conformance prior to the
sampling event.

2.11.2 Collecting Representative Samples

For all but the most complex sampling programs, wastewater samples may be collected by the following methods, listed in
ascending order for accuracy and cost:
• grab sample – a single sample taken at a specific time;
• composite sample – a single sample composed of two or more portions representing a waste stream over a period of
time; and
 Characterizing the source 31

• flow-weighted composite sample – a single sample composed of two or more portions where the portion size is
proportional to the flow at the time the portion was collected. As an example, if the flow at time A is two times that
at time B, the volume of the sample portion for time A should be twice that of time B.
Grab samples should be used when wastewater does not flow continuously or when wastewater quality does not vary greatly.
Take multiple grab samples at different times of the day and different days of the week to try to determine average contaminant
concentrations relative to the variability of the flow. In contrast, use composite and flow-weighted composite samples when
more accurate data are required or when wastewater constituent concentrations are highly variable. Composite sampling
usually requires automated sampling equipment and flow measuring devices. Hire laboratory or trained personnel to
conduct this sampling.

2.11.3 Proper Handling and Preservation of Field Samples

Wastewater contains infectious microorganisms, which means field samples must be collected and handled in a hygienic
manner. Personal protective equipment including latex gloves (and, ideally, eye protection) must be worn at all times
during sample collection and handling (Figure 2.11).

Figure 2.11 Technician preserves field samples with sulfuric acid (Authors).

Wastewater samples degrade quickly so they must be preserved properly for transit to the laboratory for processing. This
must be accomplished within the hold time, which is specific for each test. The contract laboratory should provide instructions
and materials for proper field preservation of samples. Check with the laboratory for specific details about these two primary
methods:
• preservation in an ice chest at 4°C, good for pathogen/BOD sampling (hold time of 6 hours) and for total/volatile solids
and other parameter testing, usually with 7-day hold times; and
• preservation through the use of certain chemical compounds, usually sulfuric or nitric acid, for N-, P-, and other
chemical-related tests, most often with 7-day hold times (Fulhage et al., 1993).

For more information about sampling and preservation methodology, refer to Fulhage et al. (1993) at http://extension.
missouri.edu/p/G1895.

2.11.4 Chain of Custody and Sample Identification Procedures

Chain of custody tracks the movement of samples and who controls them from the time of sampling, through transportation to
and receipt of the samples at the laboratory, and ending at the analysis stage. Laboratories provide samplers with Chain of
Custody forms (Figure 2.12), which are legal documents that provide the following:
• sample identification;
• data related to the site conditions at the time of sampling;
• instructions to the laboratory about the requested analytical testing and storage of each sample; and
• the date, time, and signature of each person that maintains custody of the sample.
32 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 2.12 Typical Chain of Custody form (HiAdvance Laboratories, 2013).

 Characterizing the source 33

2.11.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) refer to the policies, procedures, and activities established to ensure confidence
in the accuracy of the data. QA/QC is applicable to field and laboratory procedures alike for wastewater sampling, as described
in the following sections.

2.11.5.1 QA/QC in the Field

The following practices are recommended to minimize errors and ensure quality of field-based sampling events. As these are
generally under the control of the sampler, they are presented here as best practices:
• use of standard operating procedures for sample collection and analysis;
• use of chain-of-custody and sample-identification procedures;
• instrument standardization, calibration, and verification;
• sampling technician and analyst training;
• assurance of appropriate preservation, handling, and decontamination; and
• use of QC samples such as field and trip blanks, duplicates, and equipment rinses.

2.11.5.2 QA/QC in the Laboratory

All laboratories should have QA/QC plans that should be up-to-date and available for viewing upon request. The laboratory’s
QA/QC plan should state the procedures that the laboratory uses to ensure that their internal practices are valid and follow
industry standards. Customers of contract laboratories can request copies of a laboratory’s QA/QC plans and verify that
they meet minimum standards.
Use the sampling and analysis checklist (Table 2.7) to track key activities related to field and laboratory data collection.

Table 2.7 Sampling and analysis checklist.

Sampling Plan Check List Y N

There is a written sampling plan.

The number of samples, the analytical tests, and the sampling locations have been identified
in the plan.

The laboratory that will do the analysis has been contacted, procedures have been reviewed, and
services have been scheduled.

All sampling bottles, sample preservatives, labels, ice chests, and Chain of Custody forms have been
received.

The person(s) who will conduct the sampling has been trained in proper procedures.

Health and safety training, as well as the required personal protective equipment, has been provided.

Access to the sampling locations is open and unrestricted.

Transport of the samples to the laboratory has been arranged and will be done within the required
hold times.

The laboratory is licensed to conduct the required work and that they have a QA/QC plan.

2.12 REVIEWING FINDINGS

Once the data collection and/or testing is completed, or the assumptions are made about the nature of the specific flow, review
the findings. The wastewater should be described based on the following characteristics:
• flow rate;
• flow strength;
34 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

• flow variability;
• nutrients and other problematic wastewater pollutants like FOG, lint, and trash;
• physical and chemical considerations; and
• other source-specific conditions that might impact upon DWMS design or function.
After reviewing each characteristic, ensure that the results are documented for current and future purposes, and keep a written
record of baseline conditions. These results provide a basis from which to evaluate changes, which may result from increased
flow rates or changing conditions or processes in commercial and industrial facilities. Written records are also useful for
compliance purposes.
Table 2.8 can be used to summarize the assumptions and findings. In this instance, the table is filled out with the data
collected for LORMA and represents the basis of the DWMS design for their wastewater facility.

Checking in with LORMA – A review of source characteristics

Because the design flow and organic loading were already determined, a review of the other characteristics of the
wastewater source was needed:

• Variability: There is minimal flow variability. Most of the beds are usually full and the facility is open 7 days a week,
365 days per year;
• FOG: There is food preparation, food service, and utensil washing at the hospital, so it can be assumed that FOG is
generated. Therefore, some type of grease trap or interceptor will be required;
• Lint: There is laundry washing at the hospital, so lint management will be needed;
• Trash, and hazardous and medical waste: As a modern and major medical facility, it generates hazardous and medical
waste. For LORMA, all hazardous and medical waste are collected, stored, and managed separate from the wastewater
flow. They have closed sewers, so trash entering the wastewater stream is not considered a problem;
• Nutrients: There are no activities involving fertilizers or other N- or P- compounds, so no special focus is needed;
• Physical and chemical aspects: pH and especially temperature are not at extreme values, but bleach and chlorine
surface-cleaning solutions are commonly used, which should be accounted for during primary and secondary
treatment technology selection.
These conditions are listed in Table 2.8 and represent the findings of the source characterization study.

Table 2.8 Source characterization review and summary form (example from LORMA case study).

Parameter Description Value from source

Hydraulic loading What is the wastewater flow rate (L/d)? 72,770 L/d
Organic loading What is the BOD loading (mg/L) from the wastewater source? 553 mg BOD5/L
Flow variability Does the source flow vary from day to day, week to week, or No
seasonally, and suggest the need for flow equalization?
Fats, oil, and Are there food service, food manufacturing, or utensil-washing Yes
grease (FOG) activities?
Lint Are there commercial clothes-washing activities? Yes
Trash Are there special activities that introduce unmanageable solid No – hazardous and medical waste
trash particles or hazardous-related waste? are segregated
Nutrients Are there any regulatory requirements for nutrient reduction or No
obvious concerns in general?
Physical aspects Are there any unusual temperature or pH aspects of the flow No
due to commercial activities?
Chemical aspects Are there any other chemical constituents from commercial High levels of quaternary ammonia
activities that may be in the wastewater? disinfectant are used
 Characterizing the source 35

REFERENCES
Aquagenx staff (2013). Simple, Portable Water Quality Test. http://www.aquagenx.com/ (accessed 2 December, 2013).
Crites R. and Tchobanoglous G. (1998). Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems. McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts,
USA.
Fulhage J., Porter J. and Sievers D. (1993). Collecting and Preserving Waste and Wastewater Samples for Analysis. http://extension.
missouri.edu/p/G1895 (accessed 10 November 2012).
HiAdvance Laboratories (2013). HiAdvance Philippines Incorporated, 3rd floor Maga Center, San Antonio St. Paseo de Magallanes, 1232,
Makati City, Philippines.
Lindstrom C. (2000). Treatment Technologies. http://www.greywater.com/treatment.htm (accessed 22 November 2013).
Mayer P. W., DeOreo W., Opitz E., Kiefer J., Davis W., Dziegielewski B. and Nelson J. (1999). Residential End Uses of Water: A Study
Funded by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation. http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/
RFR90781_1999_241A.pdf (accessed 2 March 2013).
National Small Flows Clearinghouse (1997). Basic Wastewater Characteristics: Pipeline Newsletter. http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/
publications/pipline/PL_FA97.pdf (accessed 14 April 2013).
Onsite Sewage Treatment Program Staff, University of Minnesota (2011). Manual for Septic System Professionals in Minnesota, Chapter 5:
Wastewater Sources and Flow. http://www.septic.umn.edu/sstsmanual/index.htm (accessed 15 February 2013).
Santos C. and Robbins D. (2011). Low-cost Innovative Solutions for Treating Public Market Wastewater in the Philippines: Deploying
Hybrid Anaerobic and Aerobic Cocopeat Filtration Systems. http://www.rti.org/publications/abstract.cfm?pubid=18248 (accessed
12 April 2013).
Sasse L. (1998). DEWATS: Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries. http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/
reference_attachments/SASSE%201998%20DEWATS%20Decentralised%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20in%20Developing%
20Countries_0.pdf (accessed 5 October 2012).
University of Wisconsin-Madison (1978). Management of Small Wastewater flows (EPA 600/7-78-173). Office of Research and
Development, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, US EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
Washington State Department of Health (2013). Coliform Bacteria in Drinking Water. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Communityand
Environment/DrinkingWater/Contaminants/Coliform.aspx (accessed 3 June 2013).
Chapter 3
Evaluating the site

This chapter will

• Introduce the site plan drawing;
• Present the step-by-step procedures for evaluating soils, which helps determine a site’s potential for dispersing
wastewater effluent;
• Discuss how to identify constraints related to groundwater and surface water;
• Describe the other factors studied within site evaluation, including land use of surrounding parcels, utility conflicts, and
access; and
• Consider how the desire to reuse or recycle the residuals of wastewater treatment can drive technology decisions.

Figure 3.1 Crucial processes, site features, and concepts of soil-water passage that guide soils-dispersal DWMS technology
selection as part of the site evaluation process (Hoover, 2013).
38 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

About Figure 3.1

Figure 3.1 depicts a single family home and how wastewater flows from the building, through the septic tank, and into a soil
dispersal system. In this case, the soil dispersal system is a leach trench, which is a gravel-filled excavation that is sited and
sized so that the effluent will receive proper treatment as it passes through the soils.
The image reminds us that what is above the ground is just a part of what must be considered when designing a watewater
management system. Through the aid of soil discovery holes (test holes), we can uncover the different layers of soils that hold
clues as to which management technologies might be best for a particular project. This chapter covers the evaluation of the
surface and subsurface features of the site, which are used to make informed DWMS technology selections and to provide
information (such as presence of groundwater or bedrock) to the installer before excavation occurs.
In many parts of Asia and Africa, septic tanks are installed without bottoms. Or, if two compartment tanks are used, the
second compartment often has an open bottom to encourage leaching. While these leaching septic tanks may be effective at
removing the wastewater from public contact, they may do little to treat the wastewater as it moves through the soil and
into the aquifer. Indeed, in many parts of the world, such systems are directly responsible for contamination of aquifers
that supply large portions of the population with drinking water. At a minimum, the materials provided in this chapter may
help to dispel the idea that leaching septic tanks are sufficient forms of wastewater management and to provide ways to
improve upon this choice.
The soils and other site evaluation techniques presented in this chapter do not require any specialized equipment. They can
all be performed on site by trained practitioners. Once mastered, these techniques will enable the investigator to rapidly
determine the adequacy of the soils for on-site dispersal and soils-based treatment and, if adequate, how much wastewater
can safely be applied to a given land area. This knowledge can be used for a DWMS that either leaches the effluent away,
or reuses it for landscape or crop irrigation. Understanding the soils is a key component of the site evaluation process and
is a main feature of this chapter. Teaching this step-by-step methodology is one of the tools that can be used to build the
capacity of local service providers to enable the widespread application of DWMS technologies in developing countries.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The second set of necessary inputs in the DWMS decision-making process is obtained through evaluating the site where the
wastewater management will take place. Preparing a site plan drawing and understanding key site features, such as soil
properties, slope and topography, water resources, land use, nearby utility connection points, and overall site access are
vital to choosing the most appropriate technologies. The sections and checklist Table 3.1 below can aid the site investigator
in organizing activities and conducting them in a step-by-step process.

Table 3.1 Site evaluation checklist.

Task Y N

Prepare a scaled site plan sketch showing property lines, buildings, slope, and other features that can be used to estimate land area available.

Excavate test holes or auger borings and assess soil horizon arrangement, depth and thickness.

Evaluate the soils for structure, texture, consistence, and other properties.

Determine the depth to groundwater or other limiting conditions and identify the shallowest such condition.

Determine site slope and landscape position.

Determine long-term acceptance rate (LTAR) for each soil horizon and identify other soils-based concerns.

Determine surface water elevation and identify flood plains and surface drainages.

Assess land use and key water features of the parcel and surrounding areas, including location of wells and surface waters.

Locate utility connection points and any pre-existing DWMS structures on the property.

Verify that the site is determined to be free and open, with any restrictions noted.

Identify desired end uses of the treated effluent and residuals.

Identify any regulatory compliance restrictions or zoning, land use, or discharge restrictions.
 Evaluating the site 39

3.2 CREATING AND USING A SITE PLAN SKETCH

A site plan sketch helps the service provider plan the key technology features of the DWMS. The sketch serves as a tool
for describing all of the physical features of the site on one page. It is used to determine the locations of the site’s existing
and future structures and features, to estimate the available surface area for DWMS components, and to verify compliance
with setbacks from wells and other features. It is also used to map the flow of raw wastewater as it moves from the source
to the treatment system, through the treatment components, and finally to the point of discharge, reuse, or dispersal.
A site plan drawing (example for LORMA in Figure 3.2) identifies property lines, wells, setbacks, physical structures,
buildings, slope and topographical information, floodplains and drainages, where soils tests were conducted, and locations
on the site where the DWMS infrastructure can be installed, as well as gives slope and topographical information. It is
drawn to scale and is fully dimensioned. Good site plan drawings are effective for communicating information about a
project to regulators, contractors, stakeholders, or other interested parties.
In this LORMA Medical Center site drawing (provided for illustrative purposes only), notice the following features that
correspond with the circled numbers on the drawing:
(1) Topography contour lines indicating the slope. In this instance, they are based on a fixed point which is assigned an
arbitrary value of 100 M from which all slopes on the property are measured;
(2) Property dimensions. These can often be obtained from land use records at the local government, but when in doubt, a
formal survey can help identify actual property lines;
(3) Test hole (soil boring locations). These are plotted on the site plan and help identify the variability of subsurface
features;
(4) Locations of all wells and water lines on the subject property, and on neighboring parcels. Their locations are shows to
verify compliance with setback requirements;
(5) Location of existing septic tanks. This helps them to identify the existing wastewater discharge locations, enabling the
designer to effectively plan sewer lines and locations for other system components.

Figure 3.2 Example site plan sketch for LORMA Medical Center (Durand, 2013).
40 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

3.2.1 Step-by-step Procedure

The step-by-step process for creating a site plan sketch (which is listed in the checklist Table 3.3 below) is as follows:
(1) Choose an appropriate scale. A scale unit must be chosen that allows the plan to be best represented on paper. Often, a
1-cm increment is used to represent 1, 5 or 10 m. Proper scaling allows a reviewer to check the dimensions of the plan
and the service provider to easily calculate distances and areas, which are critical in designing and sizing sewers and
treatment components.
(2) Identify north on the site plan sketch and represent it by an arrow. This common engineering standard lets the
reviewer visualize the site.
(3) Draw in the property lines and dimension them. Local government officials are often sources of information related
to property line location. If the exact location of a properly line is unknown, a formal survey may be required.
Mapping the fully dimensioned property lines helps to ensure that the DWMS is put on the correct parcel.
(4) Locate all existing buildings, driveways, roads, streams, floodplains, cut banks, and any other features of the land that
might impact upon the DWMS. This is done by measuring distances between features using a tape measure and
compass. Two measurements are generally required to locate a feature on the site plan.
(5) Locate any future developments, buildings, or structures. Wastewater treatment and reuse systems will become
permanent features of the site. It is important to consider how the site will develop in the future, not only to
appropriately plan for additional wastewater volumes, but also to make sure that future development is not
limited due to poor placement of DWMS.
(6) Draw in the rough slope and topographic features. Sufficient topographic information is needed to establish the
hydraulic profile which, if highly sloping, can have significant impacts on the development. Providing accurate
topography will also help the service provider to:
• select the best routes for the sewer line;
• determine if gravity alone can make the wastewater flow as desired; and
• determine if special features, such as sewer drops with proper drop boxes and cleanouts that are used to avoid
clogging, can be installed or if pumping stations will be required.
(7) Locate all test holes, soils borings, or other soil-related testing locations. Number these so that they can be
cross-referenced with soil-boring logs.
(8) Locate water lines, wells, drinking water intakes, and other water-related features. These critical features require
stringent adherence to setbacks from wastewater management components to protect public health. Check with
the local regulatory official or use the setbacks provided in Table 3.2 (not intended as endorsement) in
conformance with local best practice.

Table 3.2 Recommended setbacks from wastewater system components (adapted from
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, 2010).

Feature Treatment Leach Seepage

unit (m) lines (m) pit (m)
Structure 1.5 2.5 3
Property line 1.5 1.5 3
Property line, if wells are present 15 15 15
Public water line 3 8 8
Well 30 30 50
Cutback or drainage ditch 5 15 15
Stream or pond 10 30 30
Drinking water reservoir 20 70 70
Road easement 1 2 3
Table 3.2 provides some of the common setbacks for on-site and decentralized wastewater treatment
systems. Those recommended setback distances are from the wastewater system to sensitive features of
the site, and shall be used unless country-specific setbacks are provided. Setbacks from other features,
such as cut banks, slopes, swimming pools, or other features should be based on site-specific
considerations, such as soils and other conditions that could allow wastewater to come to the surface or
otherwise impact the site feature.
 Evaluating the site 41

(9) Locate other utilities, including electric, natural gas, phone, or cable TV lines, and their connection points. If
underground utility locations are unknown, hiring a utility locating service, or carefully digging shallow holes
(potholing) to identify underground utility lines is necessary, in order to avoid hazards and liability while
excavating.
(10) Verify that all features are properly dimensioned. Check the distance and angles for property lines and the linear
distance from the property lines to the key features of the location of the DWMS.
(11) Write in the owner name and address, parcel number, or other identifying designations. Identify the ownership of all
parcels immediately surrounding the parcel in question.
(12) Provide a map or directions to the site, which will be useful for regulators, contractors, and delivery workers
(Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 Site plan checklist.

Step Y N

Site plan sketch is drawn using a recognized engineering scale.

North arrow is shown.

All property lines are shown and dimensioned, and setbacks are maintained.

Roads, driveways, water bodies, buildings, and other potentially important site features are
shown.

Future developments of the parcel are identified.

Slopes and topography have been diagrammed.

Locations of test holes, soil borings and soils tests are shown.

Water lines, wells for potable water or agriculture, and intakes to public water systems are
shown.

Locations of overhead and buried utilities, and their connection points, are shown.

Site features, property lines, and other aspects have been checked again for dimensions and
angles.

Owner name and address, and lot designation, are given.

Information about surrounding parcels and a map or directions to the site are provided.

3.2.2 Estimating the Amount of Land Available

Analyzing the properly-dimensioned site drawing can serve as the best method of identifying open spaces on the parcel
where DWMS components may be located. The available area of those spaces can be estimated simply by using a
ruler and calculator. Available land should be relatively level or as level as possible, meet all setback requirements, and
be located in an area that will not inhibit future planned development of the parcel. However, where land constraints
do exist, projects may be designed to use multiple areas on the parcel for DWMS. Often, treatment components such
as septic tanks are located near buildings, and reuse or dispersal fields located in separate locations, often connected with
long gravity (or where needed) pressure sewer systems. For this reason, identification of all potentially suitable locations
is required.
42 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Estimating land area available for the potential DWMS site(s) on a parcel

The site plan sketch is especially useful for this exercise. Once all of the features and setbacks are recorded on the sketch,
the usable land area may become apparent. In some cases, the available land area will be in a square or rectangular
shape. In this case, simply multiply the length by the width to calculate the available area. For more complex shapes,
divide the area into different geometric shapes, such as squares, rectangles, and triangles. If your site is properly
scaled, it should be simple to calculate the areas of each shape and add them together to determine total land availability.

3.2.3 Identifying site Features

Once the site plan has been drawn and checked, it is time to investigate the physical and human-related aspects of the parcel,
which are grouped below.

Physical factors include the following:

• soil horizon properties, such as depth, structure, texture, and consistence;

• groundwater and surface water constraints; and
• slope and landscape position.

Human-related factors include the following:

• land use and zoning of the parcel and surrounding area;

• utility access and conflicts and any DWMS components that might already be at the site;
• site accessibility concerns;
• regulatory requirements for discharge or other regulatory issues that may influence the design or installation; and
• desired goals for the end use of the treated effluent and residuals.

The final point, understanding the different options for reusing and recovering the residuals of the treatment process,
not only informs the technology decision making process, but may help reduce long term costs. Value from wastewater
residuals is often not apparent, and may take a collective approach to produce enough residuals to be commercially viable.
Equipment for processing wastewater residuals (Figure 3.3) such as fecal sludge can be expensive. In agricultural areas
where using treated biosolids is desirable as a soils amendment, collectives of DWMS owners may band together to
purchase and operate the equipment, with revenues used to finance and operate the equipment as a business venture.
Successful applications of wastewater reuse and recycling programs that are fully funded by the revenue they generate are
few in number. Performing a market study prior to the purchase of equipment can help project developers better understand
costs and opportunities.

Figure 3.3 Sludge drying and pelletizing machine, eThekwini, South Africa (Authors).
 Evaluating the site 43

3.3 SOILS EVALUATION

Understanding a site’s soil properties is critical in planning, designing, and installing DWMS. This is true for all DWMS, not
just systems that will rely upon the soils for effluent dispersal. Knowing if the soils are shallow or deep, saturated or seasonally
wet, or disturbed from previous excavations or otherwise unstable has a major impact upon technology selection and
installation. This section describes the steps needed to determine if the site is suitable for installing DWMS. Obtaining this
information before septic tanks and other system components are installed avoids the need for costly redesigns or use of
extreme measures to install systems in less than ideal locations.
Recording the collected data on a soils discovery hole log sheet (See Appendix) provides a structured method of accessing
and interpreting the data, which will help the investigator see limitations that might affect DWMS development. The following
sections introduce test hole excavation and soils and slope/landscape evaluations . Additional information and case studies are
provided in the Appendix.

3.3.1 Tasks Involved in Soils Evaluation

Following are the steps in the soils evaluation process. Each is introduced below and described in sufficient detail to
accomplish the tasks, while more information can be found in the Appendix and references. The soils evaluation steps
include:

• Excavating test holes or soils borings;

• Identifying the soils horizons;
• Evaluating the depth and thickness of each horizon;
• Identifying the characteristics of the soils that make up each horizon, by looking at each horizon’s clods (example shown
in Figure 3.4) for the following properties:
○ soil texture;

○ soil structure;

○ soil consistence; and

○ soil color.

• Identifying depth to limiting condition (bedrock or zones of saturation);

• Considering the site’s slope and landscape position;
• Estimating the soil’s long-term acceptance rate (LTAR), or the quantity of effluent that may be applied to a
treatment area.

Figure 3.4 The soil texture, structure, consistence and color provide clues as to the long term acceptance rate for soils-based
dispersal systems.

3.3.2 Excavating Test Holes and Soil Borings

The first step in the soils evaluation procedure is excavating soil discovery holes (test holes) or performing soil borings. This
activity exposes the soil horizons and allows for testing of the different layers (strata) and observation of the depth of limiting
factors such as bedrock and zones of saturation. This process is necessary for any DWMS that may include the installation of
tanks, ponds, basins, or where soils-based dispersal fields are proposed.
44 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Test hole excavation – process and safety considerations

• Use caution when digging test holes to prevent them from collapsing, especially if they are sited in sandy soils or in areas
where groundwater is expected. Workers should wear safety apparel, such as a hard hat and proper shoes, and follow
equipment safety instructions.
• Test holes should be dug to a minimum depth of 1.2 m for areas where leach trenches are proposed or 0.3 m below
the minimum allowable depth of any tank hole, pond, or basin. If an impenetrable soil layer (refusal) or other
limiting conditions (such as soil wetness) are met before those depths are reached, carefully recording these
conditions on the test hole log form is required before one can move on to the next hole (DWMS) location. If those
depths are reached without meeting a limiting condition, record the depth findings on the form and proceed to soil
horizons analysis.
• For small systems, dig one test hole in the area of a proposed tank and two test holes in the area of proposed leach
trenches or small ponds or basins. Excavate more test holes for larger systems or in areas where the subsurface
soils conditions are believed to be variable. Try to excavate test holes to allow sunlight to reach the major sidewall
during the observation period, so that subtle differences in soil color will be easily visible.
• If test holes are to remain open overnight, protect them with fencing, or at the very least mark them with caution tape or
other barriers to keep out people and animals.
• Ramp one end of each test hole to allow for entry for close evaluation of the soils strata. Workers should never enter a
test hole to a depth greater than 1.25 m below the ground surface unless the test hole is protected by shoring (stabilizing
the sidewall of the hole by installing wooden or steel supports) or excavated with sloping sidewalls. Work around the
hole rim should be done so as to prevent cave-in, especially if soils are unstable, or if soils contain loose sand or
gravel. Heavy objects should not rest on or near the test hole opening.
• Fill in test holes after the last inspection so that they will not pose a hazard.

3.3.3 Identifying and Evaluating Soils Horizons

Soils contain particles of different sizes that combine together into soils layers (horizons) with distinct structures and textures
(Figure 3.5). These qualities influence the ability to transmit water, quantified as the long-term acceptance rate (LTAR). The
horizons are developed over time through the action of wetting and drying, plant root penetration, freezing and thawing
(in certain climates), and mineral weathering.

Figure 3.5 (a & b) Soil horizons are often distinctive in terms of color and texture and are easily identified (Lindbo, 2013).

Soils evaluation requires identifying the separate horizons that are present within the test hole. This allows for the
classification of the horizons’ properties that influences LTAR and other concerns for DWMS application. The
 Evaluating the site 45

classification describes each horizon’s depth and thickness, texture, structure, consistence, and color, each of which is
described below.

3.3.3.1 Soil Depth and Thickness

Determining the depth and thickness of a soils horizon is a simple visual process. Soils horizons are nearly parallel to the
surface, with obvious boundaries and differences in color and texture seen by scanning the test hole(s). Scraping away
loose particles with a screwdriver, knife, or trowel makes these differences even clearer. Once the horizons are identified,
their depth and thickness are then measured against a fixed point using a standard tape measure. Those values are recorded
and the horizons are then used to guide the following analyses, which are done for each horizon and listed and filled in
separately in a log form (in the Appendix) used for formally describing the site and estimating the appropriate LTAR.

3.3.3.2 Soil Texture

Soil texture refers to the sandy, silty or clayey nature of the soil, which influences how fast water can pass through the soil (its
permeability). Therefore, texture is based on the composition of sand, silt, and clay particles in a given sample. Making a correct
assessment of soil texture is critical as this feature determines the baseline LTAR that will be adjusted by the other features
described below.
Texture is most accurately found by passing soils through sieves with different mesh sizes that separate particles by size into
three categories: 0.05 to 2.0 mm for sand, 0.002 to 0.05 mm for silt, and ,0.002 mm for clay. Testing many soil samples in the
horizon helps users determine what percent of the horizon is sand, silt or clay. Those values are then used to trace the gridlines
in the Soil Texture Triangle (Figure 3.6) to find the overall horizon’s texture.

Figure 3.6 The Soil Texture Triangle (Lindbo, 2009).

An alternative method, which is easier because it does not require using sieves, evaluates texture by feeling a wetted sample
of soil and judging its texture based on how:
• sand feels gritty between the fingers;
• silt feels like talc or flour; and
• moist clay can be forced into long ribbons between the fingers.
With practice, this simple technique can yield fairly good results. A more advanced sensorial method (Figure 3.7) that can
improve accuracy simply involves wetting the soil, forcing it into a ribbon, and evaluating the length and smoothness of
the ribbon to determine the texture of that soil sample. With a little practice, one can become skilled at quickly determining
soil texture in the field. The sensorial soils evaluation processes along with other guidance suggestions are fully described
in the resources listed within the references at the end of this chapter and in the Appendix.
46 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

START

Place approximately 25 g soil in palm.

Add water dropwise and knead the soil to
break down all aggregates. Soil is at the Add dry soil to
proper consistency when plasc and soak up water.
moldable, like moist puy.

Yes Yes

Does soil remain in a No Is soil No Is soil No

ball when squeezed? too dry? too wet? SAND
Yes
Place a ball of soil between thumb and
forefinger, gently pushing the soil with the
thumb and squeezing it upward into a ribbon.
Form a ribbon of uniform thickness and width.
Allow the ribbon to emerge and extend over
the forefinger, breaking from its own weight.

LOAMY No
Does soil form a ribbon?
SAND
Yes

Does soil make a Does soil make a Does soil make a

weak ribbon less No medium ribbon No strong ribbon 2.5 -
than 2.5 cm long 2.5 - 5 cm long 5 cm long before
before breaking? before breaking? breaking?

Yes Yes Yes

Excessively wet a small pinch of soil in palm and rub with forefinger.

Does soil SANDY Does soil Does soil

SANDY Yes feel very Yes feel very SANDY Yes feel very
LOAM CLAY CLAY
griy? LOAM griy? griy?

No No No

Does soil SILTY Does soil Does soil

SILT Yes feel very CLAY Yes feel very SILTY Yes feel very
LOAM smooth? smooth? CLAY smooth?
LOAM

No No No
Neither griness
Yes nor smoothness CLAY
Neither griness
Yes nor smoothness Yes Neither griness
LOAM CLAY nor smoothness
predominates. LOAM predominates. predominates.

Figure 3.7 Advanced sensorial soils texture evaluation (adapted from Lindbo et al., 2005).
 Evaluating the site 47

The relationship between soils horizons, the presence or absence of abrupt texture changes, and the amount of compaction
within the soil horizon may have greater influence on the ultimate LTAR of the soil sample than does the texture itself. Simply
put, knowing texture is not enough to adequately design a system or predict how that system will function over time. It simply
establishes a possible range of LTARs to use for design purposes. The other aspects of the soils evaluation described below will
help to better make this determination.

3.3.3.3 Evaluating Soil Structure

While soil texture describes the percentages of sand, silt, and clay, soil structure describes how these particles are arranged in
larger soil formations known as peds. The grade, size, and type of soil peds, described below, affect how water will move
through soils, meaning that like texture, soil structure relates directly to how well soils will disperse and treat wastewater
over the long term (and therefore factors into the LTAR calculation). The three components of soil structure are:
(1) grade, or how strongly the soil structure is expressed (degree of random arrangement);
(2) ped size, ranging from very fine to very coarse; and
(3) ped type, or shape (shown in Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.8 Common soil structure ped types (Lindbo, 2013).

Soils structures take years to form and can be easily disturbed or destroyed. This can have a significant impact upon how
well the soils will function in a DWMS over time. For this reason, soils-based dispersal systems installed in sites that have
been previously disturbed must be properly designed with this in mind. Poor construction practices during the installation
process that might destroy the soil structure, such as excavating during excessively wet seasons, should be avoided. Soil
structure and the other parameters that are studied within the full methodology for classifying soils are all described in
the Appendix.

3.3.3.4 Soil Consistence

Soil consistence describes how easy it is to deform or break up the individual soil peds. It measures the soils’ presence of clay
particles that may shrink or swell during wetting, and how likely the soil may be to smear during installation. Both conditions
can negatively affect the long-term performance of the system. Like with the other soil properties, more information on soil
consistence and how it factors into the LTAR calculation can be found in the Appendix.
48 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

3.3.4 Identifying the Water Table and Other Limiting Conditions

To protect public health and ensure the long-term operation of soil dispersal systems, discharging wastewater effluent into
saturated soils is prohibited. If the water table meets the bottom of a leach trench, a clogging zone may form more rapidly,
leading to early system failure and a direct connection between soils-based dispersal systems and drinking water aquifers.
Therefore, it is necessary to understand the three states of soil saturation, which are as follows:
• unsaturated – soils with pore spaces between soil particles that are filled with air or water that is transient;
• saturated – soils with pore spaces between the soil particles that are always full of water. The elevation of the top of the
saturated zone is known as the water table;
• seasonally saturated – soils that are flooded seasonally, usually during rainy seasons when the elevation of the water
table rises or for any period of time longer than 7 days.
Often, the elevation of the uppermost level of saturated soil changes during the year. From a site evaluation perspective, the
goal is to identify the depth to the seasonal high water table (SHWT). There are two good ways to identify the SHWT. The most
common method is to observe mottles, which are areas of red and grey discoloration of the soil due to the reduction,
translocation, and oxidation of iron oxides in saturated and anaerobic soil conditions (Figure 3.9a). In general, finding the
SHWT can be done at a basic level by assessing the horizon depths for mottling, or rigorously through using the Munsell
Chart color analysis procedure as described below.

Figure 3.9 Soil mottling as an indication of soil saturation (Lindbo, 2013); shallow groundwater monitoring well (Authors).

The second method is by monitoring water levels within wells in the area. However, with cased wells, shallow water
is often sealed to encourage withdrawal of deep water. In these situations, consider installing shallow groundwater
monitoring wells (Figure 3.9b). Water depth then can be obtained using a probe or with a tape measure and flashlight. Note
that monitoring for water table elevation must occur during the times of the year when the highest groundwater levels
are expected.

The Munsell soil color chart helps with detailed recognition of soil mottling and is advisable for larger soils-based
dispersal system projects as an accurate method of determining depth to seasonal high water. For more
information, refer to the U.S. Illinois Soil Classifier Association (2010) soil investigation resource: http://www.
illinoissoils.org/Links_Files/Understanding%20Soils_Final2.pdf.
 Evaluating the site 49

3.3.4.1 Depth to Limiting Conditions

Limiting conditions are soil features that make a site unsuitable for dispersal either based on texture, structure, bedrock (totally
impermeable) status, or saturation. Often, limiting conditions are identified by simply observing standing groundwater,
significant mottling as described above, impermeable layers that may be associated with dense clay, or the presence of
bedrock. If no such features are obvious, then the limiting condition can be chosen as the horizon with the highest
percentage of clay. In any case, knowing the depth to the shallowest limiting condition, which should be separated from
the bottom of the leaching system by at least 0.3 m of usable soil to ensure proper treatment, will help determine the
maximum potential depth of soils-based dispersal systems. A complete description of the how that depth can be estimated
and how it fits into the soil dispersal system sizing procedure is provided in the Appendix.

3.3.5 Evaluating Slope and Topography

Moving up to the soil surface, the focus now turns to slope and topography. Slope defines the incline between two points.
Topography reflects the surface shape and features of an area, which form the basis of the slope calculation as well as
overall landscape position. Both are important for evaluating sites intended for DWMS.

3.3.5.1 Assessing Slope and its Impact on DWMS

Slope can be expressed in two different ways – as a percent incline or as an angle of the slope. The initial steps to calculating
slope either way are the same. The basic calculation of slope is shown in Figure 3.10. Often called rise over run, this refers to
vertical distance divided by horizontal distance, which is multiplied by 100 to give a percentage.

Figure 3.10 Examples of slope calculation (Lindbo, 2009).

The slope of the land is strongly linked to the technology and cost of DWMS installation. DWMS may be successfully
installed on slopes as high as 60 percent, although the amount of fill needed and excavation issues may make finding
less-sloped sites (less than 30% slope) more attractive. Slope also has an impact upon the design of soils-based dispersal
systems, as shown in later calculations.

3.3.5.2 Topography’s Relationship with Slope

Slope also can be calculated easily by using a detailed topographic map (Figure 3.11) if one is available. This common task is
often performed when considering routes for sewer lines. Once the sewer line location is plotted on the map, the length of the
line (distance) must then be measured, and using the scale of the map, converted from feet to meters if necessary. The total
elevation change along the line can then be determined by subtracting the elevation of the lowest contour used from the
elevation from that of the highest contour used. No conversions for this measurement are necessary, as it is a real-world
elevation change.
To calculate a percent slope, simply divide the elevation change in meters by the distance of the line drawn and multiply by
100 as instructed above. For example, if the value calculated is 20, then for every 100 meters covered in a horizontal direction
there will be a gain (or loss) of 20 m in elevation.
50 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 3.11 Using topographic maps to determine slope (Geospatial Training and Analysis Cooperative at Iowa State University
[GSTAC], 2008).

To calculate the angle of the slope, divide the elevation change in meters by the distance of the drawn line (after converting it
to meters). This is the tangent value for the angle of the slope. Apply an arctangent function to this value to obtain the angle of
the slope, by hitting the ‘inv’ button and then the ‘tan’ button on most scientific calculators to get the slope angle. This will
provide the slope angle calculated between a horizontal plane and the surface of the hill. Even if you do use a contour map,
be sure to verify all elevations in the field.

Determining topography in the field

To verify elevations in the field, a simple builder’s level, or even a water-filled tube level, can be used to make very accurate
slope and basic topographic assessments. One strategy is to lay out a grid by placing stakes at evenly spaced intervals
(points) on the site. Using more stake-points increases the accuracy of the topographic determination. Once the stakes
are placed, measure the elevation change using a builder’s level from a fixed elevation point. Plot these elevations on
the site plan and connect points with common elevations to indicate the contours.
For more complex projects, hire a land surveyor who will use more accurate methods to develop topographic maps and
identify property lines. This is useful because often there is no topographic information (much less a map) for a site, and it
will be up to the service provider to produce one.

3.3.5.3 Landscape Position and Slope Description

Beyond the scale of point-to-point slope, topography also shapes the landscape position of a site, which also plays a large
part in determining a site’s suitability for soils dispersal-based DWMS. The most notable concept within landscape position
is that water will tend to pool, increasing soil wetness, within areas with concave (bowl-shaped) or flat features. Wetter soil
conditions imply increased ease of potential pathogen passage through the soil to the groundwater, as well as poor drainage
that can lead to storm water or wastewater pooling up at the DWMS site and harming the system. Therefore, toe slope and
near-stream zones (often classified as floodplains), as the most concave zones, are generally considered unsuitable for
 Evaluating the site 51

DWMS. However, soils are often very shallow at the ridge top (head), which can sometimes make the ridge top areas also
unsuitable for DWMS.
The interrelated concept of slope description, which defines a site by its concave, convex (opposite to concave) and linear
nature both in the downhill and horizontal directions, also influences the calculation of the site’s LTAR. The methodology
for classifying slope description as well as landscape position is better described in the Appendix, which also shows
how the two parameters can be used within LTAR calculations.

3.3.6 Determining Long Term Acceptance Rate and Identifying Other

Soil-based Concerns
As mentioned previously, calculating the LTAR is a function of a site’s soil texture, structure, and consistence; slope and
landscape position; and vegetation (which can increase permeability) and other factors. Refer to the Appendix for a full
description of this topic and an in-depth review of the soils evaluation procedures. Loading rate calculation forms and
examples are also provided.
As for other soil-related issues, understanding the buoyancy forces at work if soil saturation is present at a given site is
critical. Buoyancy, as it relates to DWMS, is the upward pressure exerted by groundwater that opposes the weight of a tank
or other structures. Buoyancy forces are powerful and can lift concrete septic tanks out of the ground if they are not
properly installed (Figure 3.12). In practical terms, the buoyancy force equals the weight of the displaced water by the tank
or structure. Designers should ensure that there is enough weight (the weight of the tank and soil cover on top of the tank,
or concrete substitution for soil cover) to counterbalance the buoyancy forces of the tank when empty.

Figure 3.12 (a) Septic tank disaster due to buoyancy forces (Lindbo, 2013); (b) Using tie-down to secure septic tank to concrete
slab in high groundwater conditions (Authors).

Septic tank anti-buoyancy force design considerations

Septic tanks are almost always full of water, so buoyant forces are mostly canceled out. However, when tanks are
desludged, they may float if groundwater is present. For this reason, service providers must consider buoyancy forces
when designing DWMS in saturated soils. Each liter of air in the tank will try to lift the tank with a force equivalent to the
downward force of a stationary 1 kg object. So, a 5,000 L empty tank in a water table zone has to weigh at least 5,000 kg
or be tied down securely; otherwise, it may float.
Attaching the septic tank to a concrete foundation is one solution. The weight (mass) of the soil on top of the tank and the
weight of the tank itself should also be considered when counteracting buoyant forces.

For more information, view this sample calculation sheet (in non-metric units) from Roth USA (2007), an
environmental services provider: http://www.roth-usa.com/PDF_Download_Files/RMT_buoyancy_calc.pdf.
52 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

3.4 DETERMINING IF SURFACE WATERS ARE

LIMITING CONDITIONS
In developing countries such as Madagascar, Bangladesh and Indonesia, large populations of low-income or displaced
people are often forced to live in flood-prone areas where space is most readily available. This not only places people at
risk from the hazards brought by floods, but pollutes surface waters due to flooded sanitation systems’ release of un- or
under-treated human wastewater. Therefore, analyzing surface waters and how they may impact a parcel of land chosen for
DWMS is important for site evaluation and for selecting appropriate technologies. Below are definitions helpful to this
discussion:

• Floodplain – the flat land bordering a river, which stretches from the banks of the channel of the river to the base of the
valley walls, that experiences flooding during major storm events.
• Floodway – the channel of the river or stream that carries flood flows.
• Flood fringe – the land that may be covered by flood waters during storm events or periods of high discharge, but that
does not experience strong currents.
• Flood elevation – the vertical elevation that water levels reach during floods. Often referred to as 10-year, 50-year, or
100-year flood elevations, the period designates the likely highest elevation expected to be equaled or exceeded during
the period.

DWMS components should never be placed in a floodway and only be placed in a floodplain if full controls are implemented,
such as:

• properly designed riprap (bank stabilization) systems that shield equipment from flood flows;
• full protection from inundation with watertight covers and access ports; and
• components elevated above the 100-year flood elevation and installed in waterproof electrical boxes.

DWMS components may be installed in a flood fringe area as long as partial controls are installed. Typically these
are watertight tank access ports, lids, and electronic equipment, which must be installed above the 100-year flood elevation.
Information about flooding can be obtained using floodplain maps, published information, or anecdotal information.
Unfortunately, accurate floodplain maps are limited or nonexistent in many developing countries. Due to this lack of
published data, it is often necessary to consult neighbors or historians who have firsthand knowledge of flood elevations
based on past significant flood events. In areas of the world that are forecasted to experience wetter conditions or more
severe storms due to climate change, designing DWMS to withstand estimated future high water levels adds resiliency.

3.5 DETERMINING HOW LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PARCELS

AFFECTS DWMS SELECTION
The land use activities on neighboring parcels, which are often shown on planning maps (Figure 3.13), may affect the
wastewater treatment technologies that are appropriate for a project. In the case of the city in the figure, dark green areas
(which are farmland) would permit neighboring DWMS such as sewage lagoons that would likely be different than those
DWMS permitted on nearby red areas (new development). Overall, it is important to know about the land use patterns
neighboring the system for the following reasons:

• neighboring developments may be able to connect to the system in the future, which could provide additional revenue
from fees. Knowing this in advance can help planning for future expansion;
• neighboring land use and water-related features may impact a site’s technology decisions in more basic ways.
For example, wells on neighbors’ properties need sufficient setbacks from DWMS just like the ones on the study
site do. Also, if there is a population center next to the DWMS site, technologies that generate odors and/or
noise, such as sewage lagoons, should be avoided or managed with nuisance control measures. Use Table 3.4
as guidance.

The main issues as seen in Table 3.4 are odor, insects, and noise. These are more of a problem for larger DWMS systems,
such as those serving subdivisions or large commercial facilities, rather than small systems or those serving single-family
residences.
 Evaluating the site 53

Figure 3.13 Land use planning map for Pingxiang Municipality, China (Authors).

Table 3.4 Odor and noise control recommended measures for larger DWMS systems and examples based on distance from
property lines.

Distance from Nuisance control Reason(s) Examples of control

wastewater system measures mechanisms
to property line
50 m or less Full odor, noise, and At this distance, odors, and noise Gas-tight covers on ponds; gas-tight
insect controls. from wastewater systems can seals on all manholes and riser lids;
cause complaints. proper insulation on mechanized
equipment. Full enclosure is an option.
50 m to 100 m Partial odor control Odor can travel over the ground Gas-tight covers on ponds; gas tight
and insect control. surface for long distances if winds seals on all manholes and riser lids.
are right.
100 m and above Insect control. Flies and mosquitoes have large Good housekeeping practices;
ranges. Insect control should mosquito-control measures.
always be practiced.

Customizing plans to avoid DWMS nuisances based on land use

The wide variety of land-use definitions and related requirements mean that site-specific analyses and solutions should
take the above nuisance-control concepts and measures and apply them as needed. This process should always start
by investigating nearby land uses and the governing regulations. Planning and engineering offices for local
governments are good places to start, as zoning and land use maps may be available. Those offices can also give
information about local projects and experiences in DWMS nuisance control, which will help with understanding local
conditions and regulations. This is important, because odor and noise controls may be expensive, and using
inappropriate controls for the context and extent of the nuisance may be a waste of resources.

3.6 IDENTIFYING UTILITIES, PRE-EXISTING DWMS, AND RELATED CONFLICTS

Determining which utilities pass through a parcel is a required step in site evaluation. It helps avoid accidentally breaking
buried utility lines and can serve as a reminder about the hazards associated with overhead wires and heavy equipment such
as backhoes. Also, this process gives useful information in the case that systems are mechanized and will need electrical
power and/or water supply (which is often needed for installation or O&M). Finally, other concerns include understanding
if or how pre-existing DWMS components will affect the project, and if such DWMS might be usable or need to be removed.
54 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

3.6.1 Electrical Utilities

Only licensed electricians may perform work on the electrical components of DWMS. However, the property owner also may
need to get involved by working with local utilities to determine if power lines may be accessed.

Electricity considerations

Electrical power can be single phase or three phase with voltages ranging from 120 V up to 440 V in common applications.
Motors and other electrical equipment must be matched with the proper phase and voltage, which should be done with the
assistance of the local electric utility. Also, just because there is a power line crossing the property, do not assume that it
may be tapped into. Avoid expensive project revisions and find out about power availability during the site evaluation stage.

3.6.2 Water Availability for System Operation and Maintenance

Unlike with electrical lines, which are usually above-ground, it is necessary to find out where underground water lines are
located. If the property owner is unsure, cautiously dig shallow exploratory holes (potholes) before excavating. Water lines
may be installed anywhere, and they are easily broken.

Water access considerations

For many DWMS configurations, water availability, such as a water tap from a piped municipal system that is conveniently
located near the system, is a benefit. Water supplies are often needed in the construction or operations process, such as
when leak-testing a septic tank. Water availability may be an important factor in making technology decisions. Also, water
line location, as discussed above, is an important consideration to insure proper setbacks from DWMS components.

3.6.3 Existing DWMS Components

Existing or abandoned DWMS equipment may be used in new or expanded construction. Existing septic tanks may
have several uses in system configurations, and incorporating them may save money. Before considering if this is
advisable, the tanks first need to be found. Then, the service provider can perform a simple leak test. Leak tests must be
performed for new construction as well, as ensuring that and outlet ports are sealed and leak tested prior to backfilling
makes leak identification and repair easier.
Determine the usability of the tank by evaluating it for proper sizing and soundness of construction. To verify the size,
uncover the entire tank surface using probes and estimate the volume (length times width times depth). The depth is
measured from the bottom of the flow line of the outlet pipe. As for soundness, the proper access ports, risers, and baffles
need to be in place (and for the first two, sealed) for the assessment, while inlet and outlet piping must be verified to be
suitable for continued use.

Dealing with leaching septic tanks

In developing country settings, septic tanks often are designed with leaching compartments that discharge the settled
effluent through a leaching chamber, which is an attached open-bottomed compartment of the tank. This is an
improper design that can result in failure or groundwater contamination. The discussion above on soils suitability and
permeability testing should indicate that for proper DWMS, leaching septic tanks should not be permitted.
 Evaluating the site 55

To assess if an existing septic tank has an illegal leaching chamber, first pump the tank and remove any remaining
sludge that has accumulated at the bottom. Visually inspect for gaps, openings, or voids that may indicate
non-watertight conditions. If a leaching chamber is discovered in an existing tank, it may still be used for new DWMS as
long as the leaching compartment is bypassed by piping directly from the primary settling chamber of the tank. Also,
existing tanks with leaching compartments can be sealed with plastic liner. Both procedures are difficult tasks that may
not be worth the effort or save money in the long run.

3.6.3.1 Accessing Existing Septic Tanks

To determine the accessibility and usability of existing septic tanks, it is necessary to first find them. Often, the precise location
of the septic tank and/or its condition is unknown. If this is the case, follow these procedures:
(1) Locate the septic tank. The tank should be approximately 3 m from the foundation of the building, but often, in
space-constrained urban settings, the tank may be installed directly under the kitchen. The drain pipes leading out
from the home or under the home should give you a good indication of the tank’s general location. Depressions or
raised areas around the home may also hint at the locations of tanks.
(2) Dig down to the tank. In most cases the tank is no more than 0.5 m below the surface. Once the tank is reached, locate
the access port on the top of the tank.
(3) Clear away enough dirt to allow for liquid removal through the access port. The lid may be quite heavy, so the owner
may need help when removing it. Once the lid is removed, insert the pumping hose into the tank to remove the sludge.
(4) Breaking a hole in the top of the tank may be the only option available to access the tank for desludging if there is no
access port. This can often be accomplished with metal bars and hand tools. Upon completion, installation of a
gas-tight riser and locking lid will be required and will provide easy access in the future.
(5) Once this process is completed, fill the hole and clean up.

Other considerations for locating septic tanks

In many instances, septic tanks are installed under the home, either beneath the kitchen or the toilet area. To locate them,
use a metal bar and gently tap the floor (the tic-tic-tic method). Septic tanks will make a hollow sound when tapped upon in
this fashion. While it is less desirable to excavate a hole in someone’s kitchen floor, if no other access port is found, this will
be required. After desludging, the tank should be fitted with a gas-tight lid that will permit easy access during the next
desludging event.

3.6.3.2 Leak Tests – a Step-by-step Procedure

Even if the tank passes a visual inspection of size and internal soundness, checking the watertightness of the tank by using a leak
test is still required (Figure 3.14). While all new septic tanks, sewer lines, and basins should be leak-tested after they are
installed, this step must be done as part of the site evaluation if existing DWMS infrastructure is being considered for
usage. To do so, follow the simple steps below:
(1) seal inlet and outlet pipes as well as risers using silicone caulk or other suitable material that will not shrink;
(2) fill the tank with water to an elevation 10 cm above the flow line of the tank or basin or any connecting pipe or structure;
(3) allow it to sit overnight (12 hours minimum);
(4) refill the tank or basin as needed to bring the water level back up to 10 cm above the flow line or level of any protruding
pipe or structure;
(5) after refilling, measure the water level exactly from a fixed point (the top of the tank or a mark placed on the tank wall);
(6) measure the water level drop after 1 hour. For septic tanks, if there is more than a 0.5 cm drop in water level in 1 hour,
drain the tank and repair. For small seeps, add 1 kg of Portland cement for every 1,000 L of water to the tank water and
keep it in suspension by stirring with a paddle for 4 hours. As the water seeps out, the Portland cement particles will fill
the hole; and
(7) after sealing, repeat the leak test to verify. For persistent leaks, drain the tank and allow it to dry. Then seal it with
waterproof cement or approved waterproofing compound. As a last resort, remove the contents of the tank and
install a PVC membrane in the tank. PVC membrane is available at plumbing supply outlets.
56 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 3.14 ABR preparation for leak test (Authors). Workers have sealed the outlet hole and will conduct the leak test prior to
installing the tank lid, which will make any needed repairs easier.

Leak test considerations

Prior to leak testing the septic tank, ensure that all risers and cleanouts are installed to the proper grade and sealed with
grout, or silicone caulk that will not shrink (non-shrink caulk). The water level for the leak test should be at 10 cm above the
highest level where a pipe or riser enters or attaches to the tank.
Leak tests should be performed on new septic tanks, other tanks, basins, sewers, and other wastewater-holding
components. Facility owners that subcontract DWMS construction should require leak testing and third-party
verification as a condition of final construction acceptance.

3.6.3.3 Removing or Abandoning Existing Septic Tanks

In some instances, such as when new sewer systems make existing septic tanks unnecessary or a tank has serious leakage, the
tanks should be abandoned. Septic tanks may be abandoned by either removing the tank or abandoning it in place.

3.6.3.3.1 Removing Existing Septic Tanks

The contents of an existing septic tank may be hazardous even if it has been sitting unused for several years. For health and
safety reasons, remove the contents of the tank and disinfect it prior to removal. To remove an existing septic tank, follow these
instructions:
(1) Have a licensed service provider pump the tank to remove as much of the liquids and settled sludge as possible;
(2) Add water and use a pole or other device break up any remaining sludge and then pump again, taking care to remove as
much of the liquid as possible;
(3) For plastic or fiberglass tanks, it may be possible to remove them without breaking the structure down into smaller
pieces. For concrete tanks, using heavy equipment like a backhoe (to break the tank into smaller pieces),
jackhammers, or even manual labor to break the tank will likely be required. Use caution and personal protective
equipment to protect workers from exposure to any remaining pathogens; and
(4) Dispose of tank debris in a proper landfill.
 Evaluating the site 57

3.6.3.3.2 Abandoning Septic Tanks in Place

To abandon a septic tank in place, follow these instructions:
(1) Pump the septic tank, taking care to remove as much of the liquid and accumulated sludge as possible;
(2) Break a hole in the bottom of each compartment of the tank using heavy equipment. Never enter the tank to accomplish
this task;
(3) Fill the septic tank with sand so that all void spaces are filled; and then
(4) Cover with native soil and compact.

3.7 EVALUATING ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES FOR DWMS

DWMS should be planned so that periodic desludging, inspection, O&M, and repair or replacement can occur and so that
system components are safely secured from accidential damage or vandalism. Therefore, the proposed site’s geography and
vehicle access to the premises, which improves the ease of system service, may affect technology selection. Evaluate
system access to ensure that materials may be safely and efficiently delivered for the system construction and that access is
open for all inspection and O&M personnel.

3.7.1 Assessing Site Accessibility

Sites where DWMS are installed must be accessible to workers and regulatory staff. Assess access for:
• equipment and materials delivery. Consider weight restrictions for certain DWMS technologies that require bringing
heavy loads of sand, gravel, or rock to the site by dump truck;
• the desludging truck. Septic tanks or other components that need desludging require easy access for desludging
equipment. Most desludging vacuum trucks have standard 25 m hoses, and are limited by vertical lift of 4 m (the
distance from the bottom of the tank to the inlet elevation of the tanker truck). If these distances cannot be met and
access is limited in general, identify other options for desludging (Figure 3.15). Contact the local desludging service
provider to understand which options may apply to the project;
• O&M personnel. Once the system is installed, access must remain open for service providers so that they may perform
routine and emergency service tasks as needed; and
• inspections. Often, regulatory inspectors will require site access for routine inspections or sampling to verify compliance.

Figure 3.15 Example of manual desludging operation (Authors). Workers have sealed the outlet hole and will conduct the leak
test prior to installing the tank lid, which will make any needed repairs easier.
58 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

While system security is important for larger municipal wastewater systems, it is also a concern for DWMS. Security needs
to be addressed during the full site evaluation process. Wastewater systems can attract unwanted attention, and keeping the
public from accessing (or vandalizing) them is important. Signs that warn of the dangers associated with the system,
security fences, and locking manhole lids protect the public from the inherent dangers associated with wastewater systems.
Knowing the costs of access and security measures from the beginning ensures that they are included in the budget.

Ensuring DWMS access and protection in Georgetown, Guyana

In Georgetown, Guyana, the Partners of the Americas Farmer to Farmer program’s St. Stanislaus training farm runs a
model cow waste biodigester program that provides training and capacity building for proper DWMS management. A
key topic at the center is site safety, accessibility, and security. These fundamental concepts in wastewater system
design help ensure ease of operation and protect the system from damage. In rural settings, securing the wastewater
treatment site from animals is necessary for the longevity of the system. Not only do proper access controls allow for
inspections, but it also prevents fluke accidents (such as a cow trampling on and rupturing the tube) or exposure to
sunlight or flooding that can degrade system components. As shown in the left image (of a staff member inspecting the
gas regulation system) in Figure 3.16, this requires simple roofing and flexible entry fencing, which at the right of the
manure input drum can be tied in place or lifted back for easy entry.

Figure 3.16 Tubular biodigesters showing proper (at left) and non-existent (at right) access and protection measures in
Guyana (Authors).

In contrast, outside of the city, a small-holder’s tubular digester system was not sufficiently protected, which contributed
to temporary system failure, as seen in the right image of a temporarily deflated digester. As shown, sunlight can directly
strike the plastic; rain can collect on the digester and soften the soil beneath the unit, allowing the foundation to shift and
affect slope; and chickens can walk on the unit and potentially peck it, leading to deflation and the need for avoidable
repairs. All of this could have been prevented by simple fencing and roofing. This goes to show that proper access and
protection are crucial to determining system success. While this is especially true in the case of digesters on farms
where animals can damage systems, it is also true for more reinforced DWMS technologies that can still require manual
O&M on certain components and can still be damaged by sunlight or flooding innocent children or interested community
members (or even vandals) who can touch and break key system parts.

3.8 BENEFITTING FROM WASTEWATER RESIDUALS

Reclaiming, recycling, and reusing wastewater treatment residuals, such as treated effluent, biosolids, and biogas
from anaerobic digestion, can have broad appeal if the site or nearby parcels or markets can cost-effectively benefit from
 Evaluating the site 59

using them. The residuals may be an important incentive that can encourage DWMS investment. Residuals can be defined
as follows:
• treated effluent that may be used for landscape or crop irrigation, stall flushing for livestock operations, or
toilet-flushing;
• grease from grease traps that may be useful as a feedstock for biodiesel or other commercial products, or as a fuel source;
• biogas from the anaerobic digestion process that might be used for cooking or heating; and
• biosolids that might be composted and used as soils amendment for use on agricultural crops.
Sites for potential opportunities for reusing effluent or wastewater residuals for various activities may include:
• gardens or agricultural plots that may benefit from effluent irrigation;
• landscape areas where biosolids application and/or effluent irrigation might add value;
• pond sites that might be favorable for effluent-enhanced aquaculture or biomass harvesting that also serves as additional
treatment;
• nearby buildings that would benefit from properly treated and plumbed effluent for toilet flushing; and
• facilities that might benefit from methane for cooking, heating, or commercial processes.
These potential reuse activities can add value and/or reduce the overall costs of DWMS. Therefore, prioritizing the end use
of the residuals has a large impact upon technology selection. Use Table 3.5 for guidance.

Table 3.5 Reuse measures, concerns, and recommended technology solutions.

Reuse activity Technology level Major related concerns Possible system configuration
Surface irrigation Primary and secondary Potential contact with or ingestion of ABR, constructed wetlands, slow
of food crops treatment, tertiary pathogens by agricultural workers sand filtration, and chlorine or UV
filtration and disinfection and consumers disinfection
Subsurface Primary and secondary Balancing crop needs with ABR, constructed wetlands
irrigation of treatment availability of the effluent, and
non-food crops nutrient content.
Composting Systems that collect, Potential contact with pathogens; Pit toilet, septic tank or ABR
biosolids process, and dewater keeping proper carbon to nitrogen located at the house or structure;
sludge ratio, moisture content, mixing lagoon or biodigester for sludge
scenario and temperature stabilization, and constructed
wetlands or biofilter for effluent
treatment
Biogas reuse Anaerobic digestion, Gas collection safety; monitoring Anaerobic digester, biogas storage
secondary treatment methane and C:N ratio of input flow equipment, and facultative and
maturation lagoon(s)

3.9 ASSESSING REGULATORY ASPECTS OF SITE EVALUATION

Local governments are important in scaling up sanitation through the power of DWMS while protecting public health
and the environment. While much of the actual work of site evaluation can be performed by the private sector or
site owners themselves, local governments can establish enabling environments by eliminating roadblocks to compliance.
This can be accomplished in resource-limited agencies by using a self-monitoring regulatory compliance system in
which local governments provide the forms, instructions, educational resources, spot-checking, and oversight. However,
this is complicated by how complex regulatory programs for DWMS usually already exist and can vary greatly from one
country to the next, and even within countries.
Regulatory requirements also may have cost implications for the developer beyond the basic compliance requirements. Such
requirements may include the following:
• pre-construction site investigation and inspection programs;
• permit review and collection of fees;
• inspections during and after construction; and
• operational inspections, sampling and analysis, and compliance audits.
60 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Facility owners are generally responsible for ensuring that their systems are in compliance. This may require sampling, laboratory
analysis, hiring certified operators, and completing compliance reports. Or there may be no requirements at all. Either way, it is
important to understand the regulatory expectations to ensure compliance with all local requirements.

3.10 REVIEWING FINDINGS

This chapter provided information relating to:
• site planning and area availability estimation;
• soils depth, texture, structure and consistence assessment, as well as basic color analysis;
• groundwater and surface water as potential limiting conditions;
• slope and topography concepts;
• land use and utility/pre-existing DWMS concerns;
• access issues; and
• residual and regulatory considerations
Table 3.6 summarizes site evaluation findings related to the wastewater source (sample values from LORMA).

Table 3.6 LORMA Medical Facility site evaluation summary.

Aspects Description Local Condition

Available Determining how much land is available to help 60 m2; implies mechanized system is needed,
area understand if a mechanized or non-mechanized especially given the high flow rate.
system is best.
Soil If soil dispersal is planned, determining the depth of N/A – no soil dispersal is planned. Installation of
properties usable soil and its key characteristics to calculate concrete slab required to support weight.
LTAR. If the system will be heavy, finding out if the
soil structure is weak and needs additional support.
Surface- and Determining the impact on the site due to surface Flood elevation identified – system is elevated
ground-water waters and flooding, since groundwater is not a above it.
major concern.
Slope and Determining if gravity will enable non-pumped Force of gravity is insufficient; lift station is
topography sewerage from point of generation to treatment site. required.
Land use and Determining if the proposed DWMS is suitable based Phased approach acceptable to local authority
utilities on local land use, zoning, and utility networks. and electrical utility access is convenient.
Access Determining the need/potential for access for Site is fully accessible for all service providers.
desludging, service, and inspection.
Residuals Determining if/how the DWMS managers could Agriculture- and biogas-based residual creation
and benefit from treatment residuals, and the need to is not feasible, while local authority has given
regulations take local regulations into consideration. approval.

REFERENCES
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (2010). Design manual for onsite wastewater treatment systems. http://www.
sdcounty.ca.gov/deh/water/docs/lu_Design_Manual_for_OWTS_3-22-10.pdf (accessed 10 Feb 2013).
Geospatial Training and Analysis Cooperative (2008). Calculating a slope. http://geology.isu.edu/geostac/Field_Exercise/topomaps/
slope_calc.htm (accessed 25 June 2011).
Illinois Soil Classifier Association (2010). Understanding Soil. http://www.illinoissoils.org/Links_Files/Understanding%20Soils_Final2.
pdf (accessed 20 November 2013).
Lindbo D. L., Stolt M., Miles R., Mokma D., Greene S. and Hoover M. (2005). Soil and Site Evaluation Module Text. http://www.
onsiteconsortium.org/ed_curriculum/Practitioner/B/Soil_and_Site_Evaluation_Chapters_1-5.pdf (accessed 12 June 2013).
Lindbo D. (2009). Chapter 4: Soil and Site Concepts for Installers. Installation of Wastewater Treatment Systems. Consortium of Institutes
for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT), Iowa State University, Midwest Plan Service, Ames, IA, 43–62.
Roth USA (2007). Buoyancy Calculations. http://www.roth-usa.com/PDF_Download_Files/RMT_buoyancy_calc.pdf (accessed 12 June
2013).
Chapter 4
DWMS technologies

This chapter will

• Explore the component categories of DWMS: user interface/pretreatment, sewers, primary treatment, secondary
treatment, potential tertiary treatment, and the final disposition of the treated effluent through dispersal, discharge, or
reuse;
• Introduce design and sizing strategies for key technologies;
• Provide guidance on determining the required level of treatment for specific needs.

(a) Building (b) Septic

Sewer tank (c) Pump
tank

(d) Pressure sewer

(e) Leach field

Figure 4.1 A typical DWMS illustrating how various components come together to form a system. In this case (a) the building
sewer connects the building to the septic tank, (b) the septic tank provides primary treatment, (c) the pump tank pressurizes
the effluent for distribution, (d) the pressure sewer conveys the effluent from the point of treatment to the point of discharge,
and (e) the leach trenches provide secondary treatment and dispersal (Hoover, 2013, Lindbo 2013).
62 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

About Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 is a reminder that wastewater management systems are really assemblages of different components
that work together to achieve the project’s goals. Defining these goals at the outset of the planning process can inform the
technology decision making, as presented in Chapter 3. If the goal is to treat the wastewater to a level where it can be
safely dispersed into the environment, technologies can be selected based on the source characteristics and site conditions
to achieve that goal. If, however, the goal is to recycle the treated effluent for agricultural irrigation, collect biosolids for
biogas production, or use them as fertilizer, other technologies may be more appropriate.
This chapter presents the major DWMS component categories as well as some of the technology options to provide the
reader with an overall understanding of how systems are formed by various components that are specifically chosen to
achieve desired results. Case studies are provided to illustrate how certain technologies have been previously used,
and sizing math is given for a few of the technologies. It is not intended, however, as a comprehensive list of all the
technologies, as that would be a very long list and is not what this manual is about. This manual intends to show how
the source characteristics and site conditions influence technology selection, and we try to accomplish this through the
introduction of carefully selected representative technologies.
Perhaps the overarching message of this chapter (and of the manual itself) is that proper DWMS practice is not about taking
a favorite technology and adapting it to a given site. Instead it is about understanding the nature and goals of the project, the
source and site conditions, the skill level of local service providers, and the governance realities of the host community, before
selecting the most appropriate technologies based on those conditions.
Also, it must be said that salespeople can be aggressive in promoting their products. Purchasers and the hired service
providers must become knowledgeable about the technology selection process to ensure that funds are spent appropriately
and that the project’s long-term goals are realized and sustained.

4.1 DWMS COMPONENT CATEGORIES

DWMS use various components, which may include configurations of pipes, tanks, basins, mechanical equipment, and other
products. These components are selected based on a careful consideration of the source characteristics (Chapter 2), the site
constraints (Chapter 3), and the needs of the end-user. DWMS are generally composed of four to five categories of
sub-systems listed below:

• User interface – The toilet, which is the first step in the wastewater collection process for residential and other sources.
There are many excellent references for toilet and latrine design, some of which are listed in the references at the end of
this chapter.
• Pretreatment sub-system – Components that remove materials that are harmful to the treatment process at the source.
Pretreatment devices are needed at many commercial facilities and include grease traps for food service, trash traps
for markets, and lint traps for commercial laundry facilities.
• Conveyance sub-system – The network of pipes, channels, or sewers that transport the wastewater from the point of
generation to the point of treatment, from one treatment component to the next, and then to the location of effluent
discharge, dispersal or reuse.
• Treatment sub-system – A series of components that receive the wastewater and work together to break down and remove
its contaminants, using a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes. As shown below, this is a broad
category, which includes the following:
○ primary treatment, which usually involves physical clarification by allowing solids to settle in tanks;

○ secondary treatment, which often uses microbes to consume pollutants through respiration; and

○ tertiary filtration and disinfection, required in some cases to make the treated effluent suitable for reuse or in some cases

discharge or dispersal to the environment.

• Dispersal, reuse, or discharge processes – achieve the final disposition of the treated effluent, which may include the
following:
○ dispersal of effluent through subsurface leaching beds or trenches, often considered themselves as secondary

treatment;
○ reuse for a variety of beneficial activities, such as toilet flushing or irrigation for agricultural crops or landscape

plants; and
○ discharge to off-site drainages, lakes, rivers or oceans.
 DWMS technologies 63

4.2 TYPICAL DWMS COMPONENT CATEGORIES

Numerous combinations of technologies can form good site-specific DWMS. To better illustrate the concept of DWMS as
integrated systems, consider the following illustration. Here a typical DWMS for a school is chosen to highlight how
components are integrated (Figure 4.2):

Sewer
Pretreatment Primary treatment Secondary treatment
Disinfection
Figure 4.2 Wastewater system for a typical school, including (from left to right), sewer line, grease interceptor, ABR for primary
treatment, biofilter for secondary treatment, and chlorinator for disinfection (Compendium, 2012; Thermaco, Inc., 2013; Authors).

4.3 USER INTERFACE AND PRETREATMENT

Decisions about which DWMS technologies might be best for a specific project begin at the source. This can start by
considering the many toilet types, styles and manufacturers, as well as different models for how waste is collected and
managed at the source. Ecological Sanitation (EcoSan) and certain composting toilets for example manage the wastewater
right at the source. These concepts may be especially desirable for rural agricultural settings where the nutrients can be
directly reused on crops.
More commonly, sewage management uses toilets to collect wastewater and send it through sewers to treatment systems.
If source wastewater has pollutants such as high levels of grease, they should be removed by pretreatment devices located at the
source to protect downstream equipment and capture these materials so that they may be reused or recycled. The sections
provided below will introduce some of these technologies and concepts to illustrate the different methods of capturing and
processing wastewater. Additional information is provided in the reference section or through links embedded within the text.

4.3.1 User Interface

For residential sewage, latrines have been the basic model of sanitation for centuries. However, given current focus on resource
sustainability, toilets and DWMS have been the focus of much innovation in recent decades. Such innovation has aimed at
improving cost-effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in the case of waterless toilet technologies and nutrient-capture
programs such as EcoSan. While standard toilets can certainly serve as effective interfaces for DWMS, this discussion will
focus on two models of toilet systems as a brief introduction to innovation in this area.

4.3.1.1 EcoSan Toilets

EcoSan treats human waste as a resource rather than waste, which is shown in how such toilets use a urine/feces separation and
urine diversion design to enable the reuse of the settled and naturally-degraded wastes’ nutrients for agricultural purposes.
EcoSan projects have been implemented all over the world, mainly on a small scale, with both successes and failures.
Low-income farmers in rural areas often benefit from using treated human waste as a free fertilizer source, so EcoSan
projects have mainly been undertaken in these rural areas.
The urine and feces separation, which prevents contamination of the urine, occurs most commonly through the use of
multiple-chamber urine-diverting toilets (Figure 4.3a). These have one hole or chamber to capture urine and another hole or
chamber to either capture feces or to flush it away like in a regular toilet. Some of the toilets also add another hole for
diversion of anal-cleansing water.
For most units, the feces are stored in a bucket located underneath the structure, while the urine is stored below the toilet in a
sealed container (Figure 4.3b), where the urine can self-sterilize within 1 month. Afterwards, it can be diluted with water
and directly applied to agricultural or ornamental crops as a nitrogen-rich fertilizer. The feces can be flushed to an existing
DWMS, or for an improved approach, can be captured in a separate chamber (often lined with a plastic bag) and disposed
of, composted, or dehydrated.
64 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 4.3 (a) Double-chambered EcoSan toilet (Doczi, 2010); (b) Urine-diversion mechanism (Doczi, 2010).

For a basic overview of urine-diverting toilets and other similar units, refer to the Compendium, pp. 42–73. For a
more-detailed description of Eco-San, refer to Winblad & Simpson-Hebert (2004): https://wiki.umn.edu/pub/
EWB/Uganda/SIDAGuidebook.pdf

4.3.1.2 Other Innovative Systems

In contrast to the approach of using the toilet without treatment to harness resources, several organizations are implementing or
sponsoring systems that both treat the waste and capture resources from the treatment process. The most obvious example
within the field is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Reinvent the Toilet Challenge, which is financing a handful of
teams through grants of millions of dollars to make cost-effective, full-treatment, next-generation toilets.
One example of an innovative system is the LooWatt toilet block (Figure 4.4) that serves urban as well as rural areas. The
LooWatt model equips community toilet blocks with composters and biodigesters, which combine human waste with wastes
from food service facilities to maximize methane production that is used for cooking or heating. The biodigestion also yields
biosolids that are composted with other waste streams. That leads to fertilizer products that provide extra value to the
community. The LooWatt system shows how incentives that drive demand for sanitation services can make systems
feasible in even the most land-constrained and difficult sites while improving health and economic opportunities. Like with
other DWMS technologies, their implementation also requires knowledge of the wastewater source and the site where
systems will be installed to ensure proper installation and byproduct usage.

Figure 4.4 Biodigester that treats toilet and food waste through the process of co-digestion (V. Gardiner, personal
communication, June 11, 2013).

Find more information about the LooWatt toilet block system at http://www.loowatt.com/.

4.3.2 Pretreatment
Pretreatment removes certain pollutants from the wastewater to reduce its strength while protecting downstream components
from damage or clogging. Common categories of pretreatment devices include
 DWMS technologies 65

• grease traps and interceptors for food preparation, utensil washing, and food processing operations;
• lint traps for commercial laundry operations;
• trash traps for public markets or other facilities that may discharge a high concentration of suspended solids in the
wastewater; and
• other devices for commercial applications to address industry-specific contaminants.
Pretreatment devices must be sized according to the design flow and the concentration of the contaminant loading, and be
selected based on operation and maintenance (O&M) considerations, unit cost, ease of installation, and desire for recycling
captured materials.

4.3.2.1 Grease Traps for Food Service

Grease traps and interceptors remove the fats, oil, and grease (FOG) that are byproducts of most food operations. FOG
management is a major area of concern for restaurants and large kitchens, which if ignored can easily clog building sewers
leading to the treatment systems and add to wastewater loads on downstream treatment works. There are three types of
common grease management devices:
• under-the-sink (UTS) style grease trap;
• outdoor grease interceptor; and
• high-efficiency grease interceptor (Figure 4.5).

* ECA models have built-in

extension collar. Additional
access to unit for pumping. extension collars may be installed
to meet installation depth.

Vessel Vent Connection

on side of unit
(not shown)

Grease rises to top Inlet

of inner storage tank

Outlet
Drain water from
source enters

Clean water exits

Anchor Ring for

In-Ground Installation
(bury in concrete)

Solids fall to
bottom of tank

Figure 4.5 Trapzilla™ high-efficiency grease interceptor (Source: Thermaco Inc., 2013).

The capital and O&M costs, space required for setup, efficiency, and other aspects of these devices can vary significantly.
Regardless of the type of unit, all require proper sizing, regular cleaning, grease collection and storage procedures, and, if
possible, a procedure for recycling and processing the grease into value-added products.
66 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

For more technical and in-depth information, along with a grease management decision toolkit, refer to http://www.
iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/WastewaterSolutionsDesignToolsforEngineers.

Grease management in Muangklang Municipality, Thailand

In 2011, the Municipality of Muangklang in northern Thailand instituted a commercial grease management program. It was a
cooperative effort between the local government and commercial food service operators. The commercial operators
installed grease traps, and the local government collected and dried the grease, which is used to power the community
slaughterhouse, as shown in Figure 4.6. This is an example of a waste-to-energy program that created jobs and
economic development opportunities and addressed a major pollution source in the municipality.

Figure 4.6 At left, grease trap before cleaning; at right, grease used to fire boiling pots at a slaughterhouse (Municipality of
Muangklang staff, personal communication, October 12, 2012).

4.3.2.2 Lint Traps for Commercial Laundries

Commercial laundry facilities, as well as hospitals, resorts, and hotels with on-site laundry washing, should use lint traps to
prevent fabric fibers and lint particles from clogging sewer lines and septic tanks. Lint traps should either be attached to the
laundry machines or placed in concrete traps installed to collect the wastewater from all of the machines prior to discharge
into the larger building sewer. Collected lint can be added to compost to improve soil for gardening, or if composting
programs are not available, it may be collected and disposed of as solid waste. Additionally, commercial laundries that
include dry cleaning must also separate their dry cleaning solvent wastewater from the building sewer, as that effluent is
hazardous and can kill the bacteria that make biological wastewater processes work.

For more technical and in-depth information, along with best practice guidelines for wastewater-related
lint management for commercial laundries, refer to http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/
BestPracticesforCommercialLaundries.

4.3.2.3 Trash Traps for Public Markets

Public markets and other sources where high concentrations of suspended solids are present in the wastewater flow
require trash traps to prevent solid waste from flowing down the drains and causing clogging problems. Traps must be
cleaned frequently, while the system screenings should be placed in covered receptacles and disposed of as solid waste.
The main types of traps for markets are constructed with concrete and mesh, forming a box that strains and stores
collected solids. This low-cost option can be made using locally-available materials and labor. Traps can be customized
for different industrial uses to address specific wastewater pretreatment requirements. Owners of industrial facilities
should check with industry trade groups for specifications on appropriate pretreatment devices like such traps and strategies
for O&M.
 DWMS technologies 67

Grease management at Red Ribbon Bake Shops in Manila, The Philippines

Red Ribbon Bake Shops is a chain of restaurants operating in the Philippines that use UTS grease traps in their facilities,
which are full-service kitchens with food preparation and utensil washing. A typical facility’s trap is plumbed for easy
access, which is done by sliding out the work table (far left of Figure 4.7a). The grease trap is the metal box directly
under the red bucket.

Figure 4.7 (a) Under-the-sink grease trap (Authors); (b) septic tank located underneath driveway (Authors); (c) grease trap
cleaning time log sheet (Authors).

The restaurants incorporate grease management into their overall wastewater management strategy, which centers on
a septic tank. It is located underneath the driveway (Figure 4.7b) and channels effluent to the common sewer system.
Workers are required to check and clean grease traps once per day. Grease traps are manually cleaned, and the
grease is placed in sealed plastic bags and handled as solid waste. The management follows a series of steps to
ensure proper operation of the grease traps which include the steps given below.
(1) Managers provide training for all kitchen staff in proper grease trap cleaning practices. They also observe and log the
time and date of the cleaning operations (Figure 4.7c).
(2) Workers dry-wipe greasy pots and pans prior to placing them in the dishwasher to minimize the amount of grease
going down the drain.
(3) Management uses temperature control for operating the dishwashing equipment. Water temperature is kept under
60°C to help maximize the effectiveness of the grease trap.

For more technical and in-depth information, along with best practice guidelines for grease management in food
service facilities, refer to http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/BestManagementPractices
GreaseManagementforRestaurantsandCommercialKitchens.

General management guidance for pretreatment devices

• Ensure that the pretreatment device is sized for peak flows.

• Develop procedures for monitoring and servicing pretreatment devices.
• Determine in advance how wastes from pretreatment devices will be handled and disposed of.
• Determine if there may be beneficial uses for waste from pretreatment devices.
• Follow best management practices for grease traps and lint traps.
68 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

4.4 CONVEYANCE
Conveyance describes the transport of wastewater from the building to the treatment components, from one treatment
component to the next, and then to final dispersal, discharge, or reuse. It can be achieved through human- and motor-
powered emptying and carriage, typical of fecal sludge management programs; through combined pipes that carry both
sewage and storm water; or through sanitary sewer systems that are separated from storm water flows. Only the network of
pipes, channels, and associated equipment, rather than manual transport of fecal sludge, will be considered for the purposes
of this manual.
Several types of sewer systems are commonly used within DWMS. Four applicable types are described in the following
pages:
• Building sewers – The pipes and fittings connected directly to the buildings that transport sewage to other sewers or
treatment works. Building sewers are also known as sewer laterals (Figure 4.8).
• Simplified sewers – Also called condominial sewers, they refer to a network of shared and relatively flat and shallow
sewer lines that are laid often within property boundaries and not under roadways.
• Solids-free sewers – Otherwise known as settled, small-diameter, or effluent sewers, they use septic tanks for solids
separation and transport the settled sewage to treatment works.
• Pressure sewers – Septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) systems, which use septic tanks and small pumping stations to
collect, settle, and move the settled sewerage to treatment works through small diameter pipes.

Figure 4.8 Building sewers that lack cleanouts and sanitary sweeps, complicating their O&M (Doczi, 2012).

These are some of the more common types of sewers that may be available for specific DWMS. While large diameter
(centralized) sewers for municipalities or dense urban centers may be either sanitary (wastewater only) or combined
(wastewater and storm water combined), for DWMS applications, sewers are almost always designed for wastewater only.

4.4.1 Building and Gravity Sewers

As the most basic type of sewer, a building sewer (most often using gravity as the force mechanism) takes wastewater from the
source to the first step of the site’s DWMS. The overall strategy for building and other sewer design is to provide conveyance of
the sewage from the point of generation to the point of treatment with minimal clogging. This is achieved by ensuring proper
slopes for pipes, sizing the pipes to accommodate peak flows, using sweeps instead of bends, and providing enough cleanouts
to perform routine and emergency maintenance.

For more overview of conventional gravity sewers, refer to the Compendium, pp. 94–95.

Basic guidance and a step-by-step process for installing these (and the other types of) sewers is given below.
(1) Layout – Determine the preferred route for the building sewer that will run from the building drain to the treatment
system or common sewer. Measure the total length of the sewer run.
(2) Slope – The sewer line slope is typically 1% to 2% for pipes of around 20 cm in diameter, but this depends upon the
size of the pipe. Other slopes may be considered on a case by case basis with proper engineering support. Determine
the elevation of the flow line of the building sewer where it exits the building and calculate the distance from the
building to the first component of the DWMS. This will set the elevation for the inlet to the DWMS.
 DWMS technologies 69

(3) Conduct measurements as follows:

○ stretch a level line from the building at the point where the sewer will leave it to the point where the sewer will

connect with the sewer main or septic tank (Figure 4.9);

○ attach this line to a stake at both ends to hold it above ground, and use a level to achieve a horizontal position;

○ lower the end of the line at the main or septic tank the necessary distance to obtain the proper slope. For a horizontal

run of 100 m and 2% typical slope, lower the line 2 m; for a run of 50 m, lower it 1 m; for 25 m, lower it 0.5 m, and so
on (Figure 4.10); and
○ cut a measuring stick to the length of the distance from the level line to the bottom of the drain where it leaves the

building, and use this to guide the depth of the trench from the level line throughout its course.

Figure 4.9 Using a building level to establish the horizontal plain.

Figure 4.10 Using measuring devices to determine the elevation drop or rise from the horizontal plain at various points
along the path of the sewer line, useful also for checking the slope of sewer line excavation beds (Durand, 2013).

(4) Excavate the trench – Be sure to over-excavate by 10 cm to allow for the bedding material.
(5) Place the bedding material – Use sand or pebbles and rake them to provide an even surface at the proper slope as
described above.
(6) Lay out the pipe in the trench – Begin by attaching pipe, starting from the building. Be sure to install the cleanouts as
needed, and take care to keep dirt and debris out of the sewer pipe.
70 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

(7) Make the final pipe connection – Check the slope again and adjust as needed by adding or removing bedding material
from around the pipe. Make sure that the pipe joints are adequately supported with bedding material. When the proper
slope is obtained, fill in any gaps underneath the pipe with bedding material.
(8) Test the pipe for leaks – Install caps on all cleanouts except the uppermost one, and plug the end of the sewer pipe. Fill
the sewer line with water from the uppermost cleanout. Watch the water level in the cleanout pipe; if it drops more than
0.5 cm in 1 hour, repair the leaks. Since the trench has not yet been backfilled, leaks will be easy to spot.
(9) Backfill the trench – When satisfied that the pipe is laid at the proper pitch and is watertight, carefully fill around the
pipe with remaining bedding material and cover with topsoil. Compact the soil to a slope that will allow surface water
to flow away from the system.

Design guidance for DWMS sewers

• Design and plan sewer systems using locally-available sewer pipe materials.
• Design sewer systems with proper cleanouts – one within 1 m of each building, at every 15 m, and at lateral junctions,
and 90-degree sweeps.
• Make sure all sewer line trenches are bedded with sand, aggregate base or compacted earth that is free of sharp objects
that can damage pipes.
• Ensure that all sewer joints are properly connected (glued or pressure gasket-fitted) as per manufacturer’s
requirements and leak tested (described above) prior to backfilling.
• Backfill sewer trenches after the leak test is completed, and then compact and grade the trench soil (following the land
contour) to drain surface water away from the sewer run.
• Account for how sewer type selection depends greatly on slope. Sewer lines that must run uphill will require pumps,
while overly steep sites will require sewers to be properly stepped.

4.4.2 Simplified Sewers

Simplified sewers collect all household wastewater and convey it through gently sloping small diameter pipelines installed in
front or back yards of houses. They are less expensive to install and operate due to how they incorporate:
• smaller diameter pipe (on the order of 10 cm diameter), which for long runs can result in significant savings up 20 percent
of typical sewerage as shown in Bolivia (Foster, 2001);
• shallower depths and slopes (around 0.5%) that require less excavation and therefore result in cost savings of 45 to 75
percent relative to typical sewer excavation (Foster, 2001); and
• sewer line placement under property lines rather than under roads, which allows for increased household connections and
less pipe usage.
Overall, these cost savings can reach 40 percent, even when accounting for the value of the community members’ labor and
O&M time, and water operator training of community members. This can result in a favorable cost-benefit ratios (Foster, 2001).
Also, despite their small diameter and shallow slopes, these sewers can take quite large flows – even up to 120 m3/d for 10 cm
diameter pipes with 0.5% slope (Mara et al. 2010). However, users usually need additional education on the proper use of these
sanitary systems, so that large solids, trash, and grease are kept out of the wastewater.
Simplified sewer programs rely upon well-coordinated and effective resident-led O&M programs, as the systems are
intended to be customized for and managed by the communities themselves. This mainly involves clearing out blockages
and checking system functioning by accessing the inspection chambers, which serve as the replacement for the costlier
manholes used in conventional gravity sewers. Typical programs assign responsibilities to local workers who maintain the
shared sewer laterals in exchange for reduced sewer bills. City or utility officials maintain responsibility over the O&M of
the larger sewer mains.

For more overview of simplified sewers, refer to the Compendium, pp. 90–91.
 DWMS technologies 71

4.4.3 Solids-free Sewers

An extension of the simplified sewer concept, solids-free sewers have small-diameter (at least 7.5 cm), low-slope piping and
rely on gravity and community O&M (Compendium, 2014). However, they require a septic tank or other primary treatment
device to better remove influent solids. Solids-free sewers are relatively low cost and simple to design, install, and maintain
and have greater flexibility than simplified sewers because they have a lower risk of clogging. This permits a design that can
use shallower and more variable slope. Since septic tanks are needed, these systems require organized desludging programs.

For a basic overview of solids-free sewers, refer to the Compendium, pp. 92–93. For more technical and in-depth
information refer to Alternative Sewers: A Good Option for Many Communities (Casey, 1996) pp. 5: http://www.
nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publications/pipline/PL_FA96.pdf.

4.4.4 Pressure Sewers

The traditional view of development experts has been that passive sanitation systems are better than mechanized technologies,
and that for sustainability reasons, technologies that require electricity or have moving parts should be avoided. As a
community’s technical capabilities and capacity increase, it can look to new and better ways of solving wastewater
problems. In some instances, using simple effluent pumping stations can enable these alternative approaches, which in
some instances can save money and actually enhance sustainability when compared with non-mechanized systems. This is
especially true in space-constrained areas where using an effluent pump makes it possible to provide more complete
wastewater treatment at better locations or to use certain low-cost technologies that require less space.
In general, there are two types of mechanized (pressure sewers). Those that
• use grinder pumps to chop up the raw sewage into fine particles and then pump the slurry through small diameter pipes,
otherwise known as grinder systems; or
• settle out the solids first through properly designed septic or settling tanks, similar to solids-free sewers. Since these also
use pumps, they are known as septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) sewers.
Grinder sewer systems are more expensive than STEP sewers and require more frequent and specialized O&M. For these
reasons, they are not advisable for most developing country settings. When pressurized systems are required, STEP
systems (Figure 4.11) are recommended, because among other benefits, they use small diameter pipes, between 4 to 7 cm,
much lower than the typical 20-cm minimum for conventional gravity sewers (Casey, 1996). In general, when designed
and installed properly, STEP systems can be highly reliable, lasting many years before parts require replacement. When
local service providers are trained in the proper installation and maintenance, STEP systems become part of the service
delivery and local sanitation value chain that can help drive market-based sanitation improvement on a wide scale.

Figure 4.11 Community STEP sewer system schematic (Jones et al. 2001).

For a summary of STEP sewer system technology and practice, refer to Alternative Sewers: A Good Option for Many
Communities (Casey 1996) pp. 3–4 at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publications/pipline/PL_FA96.pdf.
For a detailed overview of, design guidance for, and information about pressure sewers, refer to the US EPA (2002a)
Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Sewers, Pressure: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_10_
15_mtb_presewer.pdf.
72 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

4.4.4.1 STEP Sewer System Components

The following sections describe the components that make up STEP systems. The components include:
• pump vault to house the pump and other equipment;
• screens to protect the pump from clogging;
• a pump, typically a submersible effluent pump; and
• electrical components including the pump controller, high water alarm, junction box, wiring, conduit, and control panel.

4.4.4.1.1 Screened Pump Vault

The pump vault is the housing for the pump, which is the center of the STEP sewer system. A pump vault may have many
configurations. One configuration (Figure 4.12) has an outer structure that houses the pump and the floats.

Figure 4.12 Screened pump vault complete with floats and electrical connection (Hoover, 2013).

Screens are maintenance items that require periodic cleaning. Typically screens should be cleaned by washing with a
high-pressure hose every 3 months. More frequent cleaning may be required for larger flows, or if poorly designed or
inappropriately sized septic tanks come before the pump system.

Design guidance for pump vaults

• If it is large enough, consider using the second compartment of the septic tank as the pump vault. This will eliminate the
need for a second tank.
• Determine if flow equalization is beneficial to the overall goals of the wastewater system. If so, ensure that the pump vault
is sized to hold the required volume to achieve flow equalization.
• Pump vaults, like septic tanks, must be installed on a compacted, level foundation and backfilled with sand or earth that
is free of rocks and debris. This helps prevent differential settling or breakage.
• Pump vaults must be leak-tested prior to being placed into service and protected from buoyancy forces in high
groundwater areas.
• Take extra care to ensure against infiltration from storm water by making all fittings watertight and diverting surface water
away from the tank.
• Vent the vault to the building sewer only if it can be connected to a properly plumbed roof vent stack. Otherwise, install a
dedicated vent that discharges septic gases at roof level. Avoid odor problems by never venting pump vaults at
street level.
• Ensure easy access through gas-tight locking lids.
• Screens should be constructed out of materials that will not corrode or degrade in the wastewater environment. PVC or
other plastic materials are best.
• Choose a screen mesh that will allow water to pass freely but eliminate the larger solids; 1–2 mm mesh opening
is recommended.
• Install pump and alarm float switches to ensure that minimum volume, operating volume, and reserve volume
requirements are met (Figure 4.13).
 DWMS technologies 73

Figure 4.13 Components of a dosing tank (Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment, 2009).

4.4.4.1.2 Pumps
The pump can come in various models with different electrical requirements. Sump pumps and turbine pumps are two of the
more common pump types used in pressurized sewer systems:
• Sump pump: The submersible-style sump pump is the most common type for pressurized sewers. The intake from the
sump pump is at the bottom, and it is often placed on a concrete block so that it sits well above the level of any
accumulated sludge. Caution must be taken to ensure that sump pumps are ‘effluent rated’; however
• A better option may be a centrifugal high head effluent pump, fitted with Teflon™ seals to prevent corrosion.
Whichever pump is used, make sure that the float switches (three of which are shown in the middle of Figure 4.13) are set so
that the pump is always fully submerged. This helps keep the pump cool and lengthens pump life.

Design guidance for pumps

• Select a pump that is adequately sized to deliver the flow rate desired given the elevation of the rise and length of the run
of the sewer path. Verify that the pump is adequate to the task prior to purchasing.
• Be sure to match the pump with the voltage and phase of the available power source.
• There are several styles of pumps for low-pressure systems, including turbine pumps, displacement pumps, sump
pumps, jet pumps, and others. Check to verify that the pump is rated for effluent. This typically means that they are
constructed with Teflon™ seals and other components that do not corrode.

4.4.4.1.3 Electronics
4.4.4.1.3.1 Float switches. Float switches control the on-off operation of pumps and alarms. For pumps, the float switch is
wired in-line between the controller and the pump. Two styles of float switches are commonly available. The first uses mercury
to make the electronic connection. The second uses a metal ball built inside of the switch housing to make the connection. In
addition, there are normally ‘off’ switches (where the electrical connection is broken when the float is in the down position),
and normally ‘on’ float switches where there is a positive electrical connection when the float is in the down position. For pump
controllers, use a normally off float switch. When the water rises in the tank, the float switch rises on its tether, and the angle
causes either the mercury or ball to complete the connection, and the pump will operate, at least until the water level in the tank
drops down and the switch turns off.
74 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Float switches are available as narrow-angle and wide-angle switches. Figure 4.14 illustrates these two common switch
configurations, each with the option for having the floats be tethered to an independent fixed object (float trees) or be
attached to weights. Either way is approved for general use in STEP systems applications.

Figure 4.14 Float switch arrangement using weights or float trees with narrow- or wide-angle arrangement (Lindbo, 2013).

Design guidance for float switches

• Tether the float at an elevation to maximize storage volume in the tank.

• Verify that the off level is above top of the pump. This will ensure that effluent always covers the pump, which helps keep
it from overheating and corroding.
• Set float switches to match the required dose and test.
• Use a redundant off float switch, which will protect the pump from getting dry in the case of unexpected low water
conditions. This can be part of a series of switches, similar to the one shown in Figure 4.13.
• Secure pump floats using weights, which are easy to set and adjust, or a ‘float tree’ that can be removed independent of
the pump.
• When possible, use mechanical floats to limit the potential for mercury entering the environment.

4.4.4.1.3.2 High water alarm. High water alarms are used to indicate abnormal operating conditions of the pump station,
such as pump failure, pump switch failure, or excessive flow to the system. High water alarms use float switches similar to the
pump control switch that, when activated, may send a visual alarm (flashing red light), audible alarm (siren or other sound),
and/or a signal connected to a remote monitoring device that sends an alert to a Smartphone.

Design guidance for alarms

Locate the alarm float in the pump tank so that the ‘alarm on’ position is just above (within 15 cm of) the pump activation
level. This allows for maximum emergency storage capacity in the tank and time for maintenance before sewage backs up
into facility or overflows. The only exception is for use in an equalization panel, where additional space for effluent storage is
designed into a system, and thus needs to be below the alarm level, while still providing sufficient emergency capacity
above the high water alarm.
 DWMS technologies 75

4.4.4.1.3.3 Junction boxes. Junction boxes are sealed boxes that are located outside of the tank and allow for watertight
electrical connections. For pressurized sewer systems, the pump and pump control float are wired together in the junction
box. Junction boxes are often made of plastic or PVC and come equipped with gas-tight sealed covers.

Design guidance for junction boxes

• Use plastic or PVC junction boxes to minimize corrosion.

• Use conduit seals or silicone caulk that will not shrink (non-shrink caulk) to seal the wire transfer ports to keep out
moisture and sewer gas.
• Use waterproof wire nuts to make secure connections.
• Ensure that junction boxes are elevated above the high water mark for flood prone areas and protect them when
possible from storm water.

4.4.4.1.3.4 Control panel and accessories. Controllers manage the pump on and off cycles from the input received
from the float switches. They may be digital or analog (Figure 4.15), and may have a number of accessories, such as:
• elapsed time meters and cycle counters, which help operators keep track of flow and identify abnormal operating
conditions;
• timers, which can be used to regulate the number of on-off cycles (wastewater dosings) per day and duration of each
cycle. They are especially useful for flow equalization;
• event recorders, which identify a number of alarm conditions and pump on-off cycles; and
• remote monitoring mechanisms.

Figure 4.15 Control panel with visual alarm, cycle timer, and separate breakers for the pump and alarm (Authors).

Design guidance for control panels

• Like with junction boxes, the controllers should be protected from sewer gas by using conduit seals or non-shrink
silicone caulk at all conduit connections.
• Separate circuit breakers for pumps and alarms should be used to ensure that the alarms will continue to function should
the pump breaker trip.

4.4.4.1.3.5 Potential tank for flow equalization: technical considerations. Flow equalization, introduced in
Chapter 2, uses a pump system configuration similar to what has been described for STEP systems (Figure 4.16). For
76 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

STEP system applications, the operating volume (the average daily volume plus the surge volume – the extra flow that needs to
be equalized) sets the overall tank capacity requirement. While the same equipment discussed thus far is used, a specialized
control panel with a programmable timer is also required.

Figure 4.16 Float settings and considerations for a flow equalization tank (Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment, 2009).

4.5 PRIMARY TREATMENT

Following pretreatment, primary treatment achieves the initial reduction of organic material and suspended solids so that those
constituents do not limit the efficiency of later treatment steps. The major primary treatment technologies are septic tanks,
anaerobic baffled reactors (ABRs), biodigester systems, and anaerobic lagoons. While those lagoons can independently
achieve solids removal, they are mostly used in series with other types of lagoons in areas with ample land, which is why
they will be further described in Section 4.6 (for secondary treatment).

4.5.1 Septic Tanks

Septic tanks are low-cost, watertight chambers made of fiberglass, concrete, PVC, or other plastic materials that reduce solids
and organics through settling and anaerobic digestion. Septic tanks, an example of which is shown in Figure 4.17, have a
minimum of two compartments separated by a baffle that helps retain solids and scum. The scum is mostly made up of
cooking oil and grease, which floats to the top, while the heavier solids sink to the bottom to form a sludge layer.

Figure 4.17 Septic tank cross-sectional view (Hoover, 2013).

 DWMS technologies 77

Septic tanks encourage anaerobic digestion, which helps break down the solids over time. However, since the rate of solids
accumulation is often greater than that of their digestion, the sludge must be emptied periodically. This implies the need for easy
accessibility for emptying by vacuum trucks.

For more information on septic tanks, refer to the Compendium, pp. 74–75, while more detailed discussion can be
found in Sasse (1998), pp. 69–72. For more technical information, refer to US EPA (2000a) Decentralized Systems
Technology Factsheet: Septic System Tank: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_
septic_system_tank.pdf. An additional technical reference and in-depth information on these systems customized
for high flows can be found in US EPA (2000b) Decentralized Systems Technology Factsheet: Septic Tank
Systems for Large Flow Applications: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_septic_
tank_large_flow_app.pdf.

4.5.2 Anaerobic Baffled Reactors

ABRs can be considered larger (and improved) septic tanks. They use some of the same processes, but can achieve higher
efficiency. ABRs, an example of which is shown in Figure 4.18, route the influent upwards through the granular sludge
blanket, where solids are trapped and consumed by microbes. ABRs can be used for larger flows than septic tanks and
generally produce higher-quality effluent. Like septic tanks, ABRs are relatively low cost, can be constructed using locally
available materials and labor, and need to be desludged periodically.

access covers
vent

inlet inlet-T baffle

outlet

scum

sedimentation
zone

sludge

settler anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR)

Figure 4.18 Typical ABR configuration (Compendium 2014).

Planning guidance for septic tanks and ABRs

• Size and install them using the guidance described below, taking care to ensure proper volume, water tightness, and
anti-flotation measures.
• Ensure all compartments of the tank are accessible to desludging equipment. Locate the tank so that it can be reached
by vacuum truck hoses or determine other desludging arrangements prior to installation.
• Vent them properly, either through the vent stack in the building plumbing (if present) or through dedicated vent stacks
that vent sewer gas at roof level, rather than street level.
• Ensure that access ports or manholes are located over each compartment to enable desludging. Access ports should
be gas-tight and equipped with locking lids.
78 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

For additional basic overview of ABRs, refer to the Compendium, pp. 76–77, while more detailed discussion can be
found in Sasse (1998), pp. 79–82. A descriptive thesis on the relationship of septic tanks and ABRs, with examples
of their application and related regulations in Thailand, written by Sri-Anant Wanasen (2003), is located at
http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/SRI%20ANANT%20W%202003%20Upgrading
%20Conventional%20Septic%20Tanks%20by%20Integrating%20In%20Tank%20Baffles.pdf.

4.5.2.1 Design Strategy for Septic Tanks and ABRs

There are three major variables that dictate the design features of septic tanks and ABRs:
• flow (Q), which is the volumetric loading rate of the influent, given in Liters/d (L/d) or cubic meters per day (m3/d);
• hydraulic retention time (HRT), which is the time in days a typical wastewater particle spends and gets treated within the
septic tank or ABR; and
• desludging interval (DI), which is the time interval in years – assumed to be one for the purposes of conservative design –
that the septic tank or ABR can operate without desludging, which is usually up until sludge reaches 30 percent of overall
ST capacity.
Many related formulas drive the design of septic tanks and ABRs. Two common ones, shown below, suggest coefficients for
compartment sizing. While two-thirds and one-third values for septic tanks are well accepted, the values for ABRs are just
suggestions, as site-specific engineering is required. For the ABR Formula (1.2), the coefficient value for the first chamber,
which can be thought of as the settling chamber, is double the other compartments’ values, which indicates that it is twice
as long as the others. In general, the length of the settling chamber is permitted to be double or triple the length of each of
the other compartments, of which there need to be at least four in total for most scenarios.
Other commonly used guidelines are that the total length of the septic tanks and ABRs should generally be at least at least 2
times greater than their width, and that their height is between 1.5–2 m. Also, tank liquid capacity (LC) is taken to be 0.8 (equals
80 percent) for the purposes of this manual. It refers to the proportion of the septic tank or ABR that should be filled with
liquid/sludge, with the rest being filled by air.

Formula 1.1: Q ∗ HRT/LC = VST ; VST ∗ 2/3 = VST1 ; VST ∗ 1/3 = VST2 ;
Formula 1.2: Q ∗ HRT/LC = VABR ; VABR ∗ 0.4 = VABR1 ; VABR ∗ 0.2 = VABR2 ;
VABR ∗ 0.2 = VABR3 ; VABR ∗ 0.2 = VABR4 ;

(Where VST is the volume of the septic tank, VABR is the volume of the ABR, and where VST1...2 and VABR1...4 are the volume of
the individual compartments for the septic tank in Formula 1.1 and ABR in Formula 1.2).

Septic tanks/ABRs and their relationship to soils and groundwater features

• Soil depth: Be sure to excavate test holes in the area where tanks will be installed to verify that the soil depth is sufficient
to install the tanks. Rock outcroppings or bedrock in the areas of the proposed tanks can require special measures to
achieve proper tank hole depths.
• Groundwater: Presence of groundwater, or the potential that seasonally high groundwater might impact tanks, requires
special attention during design and installation. Sealing the outside of the tank to prevent infiltration and protecting the
tank from flotation due to buoyancy forces is crucial.

4.5.3 Anaerobic Digesters

Biodigestion is an anaerobic fermentation process of wastewater treatment that generates methane-rich biogas as a byproduct.
For DWMS applications, anaerobic digestion is mostly used for livestock operations and residences with livestock, as the
process requires high-strength wastewater to generate usable volumes of methane. Small plot farmers throughout Asia and
Africa have been using the process for managing their human and farm waste for decades with good results. The systems
 DWMS technologies 79

require continuous O&M, but the reward for properly running systems is usually at least enough energy to satisfy a family’s
cooking needs.
The single chamber, usually household-scale digester structure comes in three major models: floating drum, fixed dome, or
plug-flow tubular system (Figure 4.19) shows the last two types. While they all have their own advantages, disadvantages, and
regions of greatest usage, they all anaerobically degrade wastewater, manure and/or green (crop) waste through the process of
fermentation, which forms methane that rises from the sludge to a gas collection system. This feature requires extra attention in
the design process to ensure the safe collection of captured methane. Such systems are equipped with pressure release valves,
and in larger units, flaring systems to protect workers and facilities from catastrophic explosions. In general, designing and
implementing these features require advanced site-specific engineering from trained personnel.

Figure 4.19 (a) Screenshot of Co-digestion Creator planning tool’s horizontal view schematic of dome digester, showing
estimated synergistic gas production values and necessary unit dimensions based on customized input waste scenario
(Authors); (b) Plastic plug flow-type anaerobic digester with proper roof and fence protection in Guyana (Authors).

Along those lines, the units generally have greater construction costs than septic tanks and must be designed and installed by
skilled engineers and trained contractors to ensure proper long-term function. This is even more the case for the larger-scale
biodigester units, covered lagoons, and complete mix silo-shaped units that accept livestock waste from large farms.
While biodigestion focuses on a single feedstock, such as livestock manure, research into co-digestion, or the simultaneous
biodigestion of multiple feedstocks in one reactor, shows promise. This process requires a balance between carbon, best
obtained from green or crop wastes, and nitrogen, best obtained from animal waste. FOG is an additional waste feedstock,
which can add a significant carbon boost to livestock waste and dramatically increase methane production. This is
significant from a community-based DWMS program where organized FOG collection activities could support co-digestion
programs as important energy sources for communities.

Digester sizing equations depend on the commonly used variables of flow rate and strength (based on the selection of
the number or mass of animals, humans, and/or green or food wastes), desired hydraulic retention time, and
temperature. The same is true for the sizing and structural design of these units that are beyond the scope of this
text. Design guidance is given in the authors Co-digestion Creator, which is an (expanding) toolkit useful for sizing
the Chinese Dome biodigester model and the plug-flow tubular system (which are both proven technologies
for small flows). It allows for addition of both brown and green waste based on the C:N ratio to maximize
methane generation. It can be accessed here: http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/RTIsCo-
digesterCreatorV30beta

For more information on all aspects of the major household biodigester models and examples of their implementation
and commercialization in Asian and other countries, refer to the SNV (a Dutch non-profit development organization)
website: http://www.snvworld.org/en/sectors/renewable-energy/about-us/snv-energy/domestic-biogas/snv-and-
domestic-biogas.
80 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Co-digestion for increased methane production in Vietnam

Since the 1980s, researchers in the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam have been experimenting with co-digestion. This
usually involves the digestion of wastewater with crop (green) waste and manure (brown) wastes in one reactor. The
system shown here, developed at Can Tho University, is known as the V-A-C-B-D (farming, aquaculture, livestock,
biogas, and treatment) method, in which wastes from pigs and humans are co-digested to produce methane-rich biogas
for use in cooking, and nutrients that are recycled to help raise fish.
The anaerobic digester, shown here at the right (Dr. Chiem, the technology developer of Can Tho University, is in the
foreground of Figure 4.20a), is a plastic tube, about 1 m in diameter and 8 to 10 m long depending on the size of the
operation (blue and white tube shown partially buried). For this installation, the digester receives waste from 13 pigs
and a family of 2 adults. The system is scalable to some degree, as larger families can use a larger reactor bag (or
multiple ones in parallel), as long as the basic dimensions and principles of sound design and installation are adhered
to. The vertical bags shown at the right side of the photo are optional gas storage bags. The biodigester costs
approximately two million Vietnamese dong (around $100 US dollars), which will drop as the commercialization and
mass-production of digesters accelerates there. This represents about half a month’s income from backyard farming
operations typical of the Mekong region.

Figure 4.20 (a) Plug-flow tubular digester in Vietnam (Authors); (b) Wetland trials at Can Tho Vietnam for secondary
treatment for digester effluent (A. Thomson, personal communication, August 30, 2013).

In recent years, Dr. Chiem and his team have been developing secondary treatment for digester effluent. There are
ongoing experiments with biofiltration and different configurations of constructed wetlands (Figure 4.20b) being tested at
the facility. In the case of the wetlands, researchers from Can Tho University and Duke University (Ashley Thomson) in
the United States are looking at nutrient and pathogen reduction for wastewater passed through horizontal planted beds
constructed of gravel and coconut processing waste.

4.5.4 Other Primary Treatment Options

This section has focused on some of the more important technologies used for primary treatment in DWMS installations. There
are other potentially appropriate technologies that also depend on settling and/or biodigestion, Two major examples are upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactors (UASBs) and anaerobic filters (AFs).
UASBs depend on steady external water flow or electricity to drive a pump to force wastewater up through a suspended
sludge blanket. The blanket contains bacteria that, based on expert-driven, sustained O&M, can degrade solids and
inactivate some pathogens. AFs are like septic tanks, but their second chamber has a gravel filter hosting bacteria (called a
fixed film system) that act like the bacteria in UASBs. Both UASBs and AFs have the potential to be much more effective
in terms of solids and BOD removal than the previously-mentioned primary treatment technologies. Also, they combine the
principles of primary treatment with some of the processes of secondary treatment discussed below.
 DWMS technologies 81

For more information on UASBs and AFs, refer to the Compendium, pp. 122–123 and 108–109, respectively.
Also, review the technical details of both of these technologies by visiting Sustainable Sanitation and Water
Management at their comprehensive website. Explore both topics at: (Spuhler, 2008) http://www.sswm.info/
category/implementation-tools/wastewater-treatment/hardware/semi-centralised-wastewater-treatments-7 and
(Spuhler, 2010a) http://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/wastewater-treatment/hardware/semi-
centralised-wastewater-treatments/u.

Primary treatment technology selection and installation considerations

Determining which primary treatment technology to use is generally a function of flow rate, waste strength and the
desirability of biogas as an end product. Small residential DWMS serving five homes or fewer will typically utilize septic
tanks for primary treatment. Larger residential and commercial systems may use ABRs or other anaerobic technologies
(especially anaerobic lagoons if land is readily available). If the waste composition (usually containing animal manure)
is sufficient and methane generation desirable, one or more anaerobic digesters may be preferable. Whichever
technology is used, removal efficiency of the organic matter and suspended solids will usually be between 40 percent
and 70 percent, while no significant reduction in pathogens can be expected.
To properly set up the chosen primary treatment system, the user must:

• locate primary treatment devices in areas that are accessible to desludging equipment;
• include enough cleanouts (manholes) to accomplish desludging, relevant particularly for septic tanks and ABRs;
• ensure that those type of structures’ access ports have gas-tight lids that are secure from unauthorized entry (using
locks);
• use watertight construction practices. Seal the outside of tanks in high groundwater areas to prevent infiltration;
• provide a stable foundation on compacted soils where tanks will be installed to limit differential settling. Use concrete
footers or foundations in high groundwater areas to secure against flotation;
• provide proper venting of primary treatment tanks. Ensure that there is a sewer gas pathway from each compartment of
the tank to the vent. Use the plumbing stack vent in the home only if proper ‘p’ traps are provided for all plumbing
fixtures that drain. Otherwise, install a dedicated vent terminating above the roof peak; and
• never vent sewer gas at street level; only roof level venting is approved.

4.6 SECONDARY TREATMENT

The moderate reductions in organic matter and solids achieved through primary treatment result in an effluent with pollutant
levels that still exceed those allowed for safe discharge and reuse. Reducing those levels further requires secondary treatment,
which are generally aerobic processes that utilize oxygen and mixing to stimulate aerobic bacteria to rapidly reduce organic
matter as well as pathogen levels. Many different types of systems can accomplish this, such as soils-based systems,
sewage lagoons, constructed wetlands, biofilters, and aerobic treatment systems that mechanically oxygenate the effluent.
The presentation of secondary treatment technologies below will describe the following:
• soils-based dispersal technologies, including leach trenches, similar alternatives, mounds and drip-effluent systems;
• constructed wetlands;
• sewage lagoons (waste stabilization ponds);
• biofilter systems; and
• aerobic treatment systems.
It is important to note that new technologies for wastewater treatment are always emerging, some of which appear to be very
promising. New technologies may be considered for use in DWMS systems, but implementers should exercise caution and
adopt them only when sufficient supporting data from actual functioning systems are presented.

4.6.1 Soils-based Dispersal Systems

Soils-based treatment systems send primary treatment (usually septic tank) effluent to leaching trenches or beds where it
percolates through the soils and receives treatment. The treatment is achieved mainly through microbial degradation, as
82 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

bacteria living in the soil are stimulated by oxygen that fills the pore spaces. If land area is plentiful, soils are deep and
well-drained, and there are no foreseen beneficial reuse opportunities for the treated effluent, these may be the most
effective and economical means of safe effluent dispersal.

4.6.1.1 Leach Trenches

Leach trenches (shown in Figure 4.21 in their typical series with a septic tank) are constructed with a series of pipes with
perforations that evenly disburse the septic tank effluent within the trench. Effluent flows through the gravel or other
medium and becomes absorbed in the unsaturated soils (vadose zone as labeled in Figure 4.22), which accomplishes the
secondary treatment. However, if the soils are saturated with groundwater a clogging layer may rapidly form, and there will
be little or no pathogen reduction, threatening environmental and public health. For this reason, extra care must be utilized
to ensure soils are adequate for on-site leaching prior to installing these systems.

Figure 4.21 Typical configuration of a leach trench system following a septic tank (Hoover, 2013).

Figure 4.22 Components of leach trench and potential limiting conditions (Hoover, 2013).

Verify soils suitability by conducting the soils and site evaluation steps as described in Chapter 3 to determine that:

• a proper long-term acceptance rate (LTAR) can be calculated;

• soil depth is sufficient to maintain a separation of 0.30 m below the bottom of the trench and the shallower of either the
highest level of groundwater or an impermeable zone such as bedrock or a clay horizon; and
• there is enough surface area at the site to accommodate the required size of the leach trenches or beds.
 DWMS technologies 83

4.6.1.1.1 Design Strategy for Leach Trenches

The strategy for designing leaching systems is to first determine the required infiltrative surface area (SA), which is the sidewall
(not bottom) area of the leach trenches and the bottom area of leaching beds, and then to determine the best configuration of the
leach field. The variables, formulas, and a step-by-step design process based on an example are given below.
• flow (Q) of the influent to be applied to the soil, given in L/d;
• Long-term acceptance rate (LTAR), which as discussed in Chapter 3, quantifies how permeable the soil is, specifically
regarding how much influent it can safely accept (given in L/m2/day); and
• depth of soil (D) above the shallowest limiting condition, given in meters.
Formula 1: SA = Q/LTAR.
Formula 2: Trench length = SA/2 (remember that there are two sidewalls for each trench).
Example: A level site is known to have a soil depth of 2.05 m above the height of seasonally high groundwater. The LTAR
has been determined by soils evaluation to be 20 L/m2/d. The source flow is 7500 L/d. Assume that the septic tank will be
located 15 m from the building, that the leach field will be 10 m from the septic tank, and that the building sewer exits the
building at a depth of 0.25 m below the surface. Determine the following:
(1) the effective depth of the leach trench;
(2) the required length of the leach trench;
(3) the optimum configuration of the leach field assuming rectangular shape, maximum individual trench length of 30 m,
separation between trenches of 2 m, and trench width of 1 m.
(1) Effective depth:
(a) Determine the maximum depth of the leach trench – if the soil depth above seasonally high groundwater is 2.05
m, the maximum depth of the trench is 2.05 m minus 0.30 m (required separation from the bottom of the trench to
the limiting feature), which gives 1.75 m maximum trench depth.
(b) Determine the depth of the leach pipe in the trench – there are four measurements to consider:
• drop from ground level to the building sewer exit point, which is 0.25 m below the surface;
• drop from the building sewer exit point to the septic tank = distance (m) * 2 percent sewer slope = 10 m *
0.02 = 0.20 m;
• drop through the (typical) septic tank = 5 cm or 0.05 m;
• drop from the septic tank to the leach trench = distance (m) * 2 percent sewer slope = 15 m * 0.02 = 0.30 m.
The sum of the drops from the four factors above = 0.25 m + 0.20 m + 0.05 m + 0.30 m = 0.80 m.
(c) Determine the effective (infiltrative) depth of the leach trench:
• maximum trench depth minus depth of leach pipe = 1.75 m – 0.80 m = 0.95 m.
(2) Required length of trench:
(a) First determine the SA. SA = Q/LTAR = 7,500 L/20 L/m2/d = 375 m2.
(b) Determine the length (L) of trench. L = SA/effective depth/2.
Total Length of Trench = 375 m2/0.95 m/2 sidewalls = 197 m.
(3) Optimum configuration:
(a) First, determine how many trenches are required:
• total length required divided by max trench length = 197 m/30 m = 6.6. Since the number of trenches must
be a whole number, round up. Total number of trenches required = 7;
• calculate individual trench length = 197 m/7 = 28 m. In summary, the system will require 7 trenches at
28 m each.
(b) Now, determine the total area of the leaching system:
• 7 trenches, each are 1 m wide with 2 m separation, gives a sum of 19 m total width of leach field;
• total area = trench length * width of leach field = 28 m * 19 m = 532 m2.

4.6.1.2 Alternative Non-mechanical Leaching Systems Similar to Trenches

Leaching chambers: Leaching chambers (Figure 4.23) are suited for sites where soils are good for on-site leaching but gravel is
not readily available. The lightweight easy-to-manage units ‘snap’ together for rapid installation. They are placed in the upper
reaches of the soil profile to maximize oxygenation of the effluent from the air in the soil pore spaces, and from
evapotranspiration from plant roots. Because of their greater efficiency compared to gravel filled leach trenches, chamber-
based leaching systems may require smaller areas. Check with manufactures for specific design guidance.
84 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 4.23 (a) Leaching chamber (Hoover, 2013); (b) actual installation of shallow leaching chambers prior to final cover
(Authors).

For more technical and in-depth information on leach chambers, refer to US EPA (2000c) Decentralized Systems
Technology Factsheet: Septic Tank Leaching Chamber: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_
28_mtb_septic_tank_leaching_chamber.pdf.

Leaching Beds: Unlike leach trenches, which are sized based on side-wall area, leach beds (Figure 4.24) are sized based on
bottom area. Leach beds may be more advantageous for areas where soils are relatively shallow. Take care during installation to
ensure that water does not pond on top by gently sloping the surface of the bed to shed storm water. It is also critical to take
care during installation to ensure against compaction of the bottom of the bed. Minimize walking (and prohibit heavy
equipment from sitting) on recently excavated beds, and never excavate during wet conditions.

Figure 4.24 Leaching bed (Hoover, 2013).

4.6.1.2.1 Leaching Systems’ Need for Even Influent Distribution

In general, one of the keys to the long-term function of leaching and other soil dispersal systems is the method of even
distribution used to ensure that each trench or section of the bed receives equal amounts of influent. This is best achieved
by the use of a distribution box (D Box), described below and shown in Figure 4.25. While there are many styles of
distribution boxes, those constructed from plastic or concrete are most typical. For larger systems, distribution boxes can be
arranged in series to allow for even dosing of larger numbers of trenches.

Figure 4.25 (a) D Box (Hoover, 2013); (b) D Box with tipping pan used to achieve even distribution (Authors).
 DWMS technologies 85

Installation guidance for D Boxes

• build a wooden form around the D Box and anchor it into the earth;
• add a few inches of concrete in the form and set the D Box on top at the proper elevation;
• fill the D Box with water and level it so that all outlets are at the same elevation. Allow the concrete to set with the box in
the level position;
• add more concrete inside the form to secure the D Box in the level position; and
• add speed levelers to improve even distribution even further.

4.6.1.3 Mound Systems

Mound systems (Figure 4.26) may be thought of as raised leach beds. They are often used for sites with high groundwater or
where soils have inadequate permeability. Septic tank effluent is pumped to the mound which is constructed using uniform
large grain sand. The sand provides both biological filtration (through the microbes that are attached to the sand grains) and
physical filtration. The sand also helps to encourage evapotranspiration by the mechanism of capillary action, which wicks
the effluent upwards through the sand towards the mound surface as one method of dispersal, the other being downward
drainage.

Figure 4.26 Mound system treating septic tank effluent through an elevated sand bed (Hoover 2013).

Mound systems are suited for small flows in areas where a good source of clean and uniform sand (as well as electricity for
pumping) is readily available. While the area for the mound must be relatively level, if the septic tank is located upslope of the
mound, the system may be designed using a non-electric dosing siphon instead of a pump system.

For more technical and in-depth information on mound systems, refer to US EPA (1999a) Technology Fact Sheet for
Mound Systems: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/mound.pdf.

4.6.1.4 Drip Irrigation Systems

Drip irrigation is an effluent reuse and dispersal technology that has been proven to be a very effective and low-cost method
of directly reusing wastewater effluent for watering plants. It has been used successfully for growing landscape plants, turf
grasses, and fruit and nut trees. It functions by distributing small drops of effluent directly to the root zone of plants,
minimizing the chances for evaporation, and thereby conserving this vital resource. As wastewater effluent contains
nitrogen, phosphorus and micronutrients, it is also an ideal supplement to chemical fertilizers.
Drip irrigation systems for effluent are designed differently from drip systems using potable water. As effluent is biologically
active, a simple mechanism for periodically cleaning out the drip tube is needed. For effluent systems, this is accomplished
by laying out the drip tube in closed loop configurations. This is seen in Figure 4.27a, which is a demonstration of the way
the system looks underground. Under operating conditions, a valve at the end of the loop is closed, which forces the effluent
out through the small emitters embedded in the drip tube. When it is time to flush, the valve is opened and the effluent is
forced through the tube at high velocity, effectively cleaning the tubes.
Drip irrigation systems for wastewater effluent are typically mechanized systems that utilize the same type of effluent
pumping configurations as described for pressure sewers. They often use a series of solenoid valves (Figure 4.27b) that
controls effluent delivery to different zones, and even does the flushing procedures automatically. The drip irrigation tube
86 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

is typically installed at a depth of 15–30 cm, which minimizes excavation costs. Gravel, which is required in large quantities for
leach trenches, is not used in drip fields, so material expenses can be much lower. The reduced cost of installation and the value
associated with effluent reuse may make up for the cost of the pumping equipment.

Figure 4.27 (a) Above ground drip field for demonstration at NC State University, Raleigh, U.S., with loops at the end of trenches
(Authors); (b) Drip field headworks, showing solenoid valves that control distribution (Authors).

4.6.2 Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands (CWs) are lined basins filled with gravel media that support plants and microbes. Those combine to
retain and partially degrade organic wastes anaerobically and aerobically through microbial activity. The three types of
CWs include free-water surface flow CWs (Figure 4.28), horizontal subsurface flow CWs (Figure 4.29), and vertical flow
CWs (Figure 4.30), all of which achieve some removal of solids and organic matter, pathogen reduction, and potentially
some nutrient uptake through the plant roots.

wetland plants (macrophytes)

water surface
inlet

outlet
sludge

liner rhizome network

Figure 4.28 Free water surface flow constructed wetland schematic (Compendium, 2014).

The effective treatment efficiency and pathogen reductions of CWs are counterbalanced by their moderate capital and O&M
costs and moderate space requirements, expert construction and O&M requirements, which can all be significant limiting
factors in the application of this technology. However, CWs provide additional functions and values that may appeal at the
local level, thanks to the greenery they produce. Initiated by placing around two clods of plants or four growing rhizomes
per square meter of surface area (Sasse, 1998), properly cultivating and managing the vegetation can develop the unit into
a beautiful green space, as well as for habitat for birds and small animals.
The main difference between the three CW configurations relates to each one’s method of influent flow within the
man-made basin. Free-water surface flow CWs, generally more applicable to larger flows, expose the wastewater to the air
and sunlight. Horizontal subsurface flow CWs force the influent down a slightly sloped path through a planted gravel-filled
basin, and are more efficient at removing organic matter, require smaller space and have fewer mosquito and odor nuisances.
 DWMS technologies 87

inlet pipe and gravel for effluent outlet

wastewater distribution (height variable)

wetland plants (macrophytes)

wet well and cover

inlet

slope 1%

outlet
liner rhizome network small gravel

Figure 4.29 Horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland schematic (Compendium, 2014).

wetland plants (macrophytes)

air
inlet

80cm

air pipe

gravel liner slope 1% drainage pipe outlet

Figure 4.30 Vertical subsurface flow constructed wetland schematic (Compendium, 2014).

Vertical flow CWs differ from their horizontal subsurface flow counterparts not only in their direction of flow, but also in
the manner in which they are dosed. Vertical flow CWs are often designed for intermittent dosing, achieved through use of
a small effluent pump located in the last compartment of the prior septic or dosing tank. Dosing occurs through influent
loading around 5 to 10 times daily, which helps entrain oxygen within the media to enhance aerobic degradation of
pollutants. In this way, vertical flow CWs can accept higher organic loads than horizontal subsurface flow CWs. However,
unlike the other CW types, the complex dosing of the vertical flow wetlands requires electricity and expert engineering and
construction supervision.
While each of the three CW types can be effective at treating wastewater, this manual focuses mainly on the horizontal
subsurface flow type. This is due to the fact that it is the most practical and nuisance-free configuration used for moderate
removal of BOD, TSS, and pathogens from primary effluent. Free-water surface and vertical subsurface models have
specific uses that may be explored further in the references.

For basic overview of the three types of CWs, refer to the Compendium, pp 114–119. For more technical and in-depth
information, refer to US EPA (2000d) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet on Free Water Surface Wetlands: http://
water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_free_water_surface_wetlands.pdf, and US EPA (2000e)
Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet on Wetlands, (Horizontal) Subsurface Flow: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/
wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_wetlands-subsurface_flow.pdf.
88 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

4.6.2.1 Design Strategy for Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands

Note: Some of these formulas and calculations may appear to be difficult or confusing. The toolkit described below helps users
apply these equations for their horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSCW) projects. The procedure and associated
math, concluded with an instructive example with full calculations, are in the sections below.
The sizing and configuration of HSCWs is mostly determined by the following variables:
• flow (Q), which is the daily volumetric loading rate of the influent, given in m3/d;
• organic loading for the influent (BODi) and also for the effluent standard (BODe), given in mg/L;
• porosity (P), which is a proportion that indicates the amount of space between the gravel particles that is filled with the
flowing wastewater;
• hydraulic conductivity (HC), which is a related experimental parameter based on the average gravel diameter. It
represents how fast the wastewater will flow through the basin media, given in simplified units of m/d;
• temperature (T ) which influences the time needed for sufficient treatment, given in degrees Celsius; and
• depth (D) of the HSCW basin that can be dug based on soil conditions, given in meters.
Several mathematical relationships guide the calculation of proper surface area (SA), which makes the HSCW big enough for
sufficient treatment, and of cross sectional area (CSA), which must be large enough to allow all influent to flow under the
surface. Full references to these simplified formulas (UN-HABITAT, 2008) are provided at the end of this section. These
resources have been combined into the following step-by-step procedure that helps simplify the calculations:
(1) Choose the preferred depth, to be excavated uniformly throughout the bed, at a site with a relatively flat slope.
D should be between 0.4 and 0.8 m; towards the upper end of that range is best. With a safety buffer between
the bottom of the lined basin and 0.3 m added in, that range becomes 0.7–1.1 m, and represents the total
necessary depth to limiting condition. Assuming there is no soil limiting condition at a depth shallower
than that range, D is determined by the type of plant that will be utilized and its root depth. Bulrushes
(Scirpus) and reeds (Phragmites) are two of the most effective treatment plants, with root depths of 0.8 and
0.6 m, respectively.
(2) Select the preferred (ideally, also the most-available) gravel media. The gravel should be as uniform as possible, free of
fines, and with a diameter between 5 and 32 mm.
(3) Determine the porosity of the gravel. It is found by filling a bucket or smaller graduated container with a representative
sample of the gravel up to a volume marker line, such as a 5 L line, making sure that the surface is flat at the line. Next,
fill the bucket with water until it reaches the rock volume line. Finally, pour all of that water into another bucket or any
other receptacle, as long as it has precise volume markings for estimating volume within around 10 mL, such as one
circumference line for every 50 mL. Divide the amount of water by the original volume, to get the fraction that
represents P. HSCWs work best when that value is between 0.35 and 0.40.
(4) Calculate SA based on the plug-flow BOD removal equation Formula 1 shown below. This requires that the user inputs
values for BOD for influent and effluent (as determined by local standards), as well as for flow, temperature, porosity
and depth. Note that in cold climates, T must be decreased slightly, as the HSCW bed winter temperature will be much
lower than its annual average value due to significant heat loss.

Q ∗ ( ln|BOD influent| − ln|BOD effluent|)

Formula 1: SA =
P ∗ D ∗ 1.104 ∗ 1.06^ (T − 20)

(5) Use Formula 2 below to calculate the necessary width (a determinant of CSA) to ensure a sufficient subsurface flow
rate (Qs), which is set to equal Q. If Qs is less than Q, surface overflow would occur, which is the main condition that
must be avoided at all costs for HSCWs. This equation requires values for HC, D and hydraulic gradient (HG), which is
the drop in the water surface height from the inlet to the outlet. It is taken to be 0.01.

Q
Formula 2: W =
HC ∗ 0.01 ∗ D

(6) Complete the math by calculating individual cell dimensions. Once W is determined, the total SA may be partitioned
into smaller cells to ensure proper length to width ratios (not more than 3:1 and not less than 0.4:1).This will depend
upon the nature of the site and the configuration of the available land area.
(7) Consult a site engineer to determine the ideal layout of the cells, given that space restrictions may not be favorable to
one long row (width-wise) of parallel cells.
 DWMS technologies 89

Example: A small rural residential subdivision of 50 homes, with an average of four people per home and typical
wastewater production rate of 200 L/person/d, produces a flow rate Q of 40 m3/d. The average BOD influent level from
several samples as measured at a local laboratory is 250 mg/L, and the local effluent standards require 20 mg/L or less for
discharge. The annual mean temperature of the area is 25 degrees Celsius. The project developers conduct the five step
process as follows:

(1) They search for a relatively flat site with sufficient depth to hard rock or groundwater, preferably at least 0.6 m deep to
allow for the planting of bulrushes or reeds. A site with a depth of 0.6 m, appropriate for their abundant local reed
species, is chosen.
(2) They search for a large supply of cheap 5 to 32 mm-wide gravel, and they decide on using locally abundant 16 mm
fine gravel.
(3) They fill a 5 L bucket with the 16 mm gravel and top it off with water. Pouring out the water reveals a pore water
volume of 1.9 L. This is divided by 5 L to determine the gravel’s porosity as 0.38.
(4) Using the HSCW interactive tool, they plug their data into the tool (described below) input menu, which first uses
Formula 1. This determines that their HSCW surface area should be 300 m2.
(5) The tool automatically finds the necessary width to be 50 m.
(6) The tool then divides that width of 50 by 15 m to get 3.3 cells and rounds that up to 4. The 50 m width is then divided
by 4 to determine a width per cell of 12.5 m. Length is found by dividing the surface area of 300 m2 by the overall
width of 50 m to get a length of 6 m.
(7) The site engineer presents the two simplest 6 by 12.5 m cell configuration options to the developer – either a one row
setup of four parallel cells, requiring a 6 by 50 m space, or two adjacent rows of two cells each, requiring a 12 by
25 m space.

Access the HSCW design toolkit and site with details on the variables and other key aspects here: http://www.
iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/WastewaterSolutionsDesignToolsforEngineers.

Constructed wetlands guidance related to source characteristics and site

limitations

• influent flow rate: although CWs can be scaled up to manage high flows, that is usually not feasible in most settings, as
the increasing land requirements can create siting and/or cost barriers. For the purposes of conservative guidance,
constructed wetlands may be considered as viable options for sources with flow rates below 100 m3/d, although
much greater flows have been managed by CW systems for small municipalities and individual utilities that can
provide the high level of O&M and desludging required (Gauss, 2008);
• influent strength: CWs are subject to clogging that can require full replacement of gravel, so be sure to
verify the concentration of FOG, solids and organic matter. While in some cases high BOD influent may be
acceptable for short periods of time, an upper limit of 170 mg/L, which is the average level for primary-treated
sewage influent entering HSCWs recorded in a recent review of hundreds of the units (Vymazal & Kröpfelová,
2009), is appropriate to ensure sustained functioning. If the influent strength exceeds that level, utilize additional
appropriate pretreatment and primary treatment devices to reduce influent strength, as is demonstrated in the
toolkit;
• slope: CWs require moderate land spaces that are relatively level, with a 1 percent slope being ideal. Avoid using the
technology for sites with slopes greater than this that cannot be cost-effectively excavated or backfilled to ensure that
slope;
• local land use restrictions: nearby parcels, such as airports, may not permit the installation of such natural basins, which
can cause problems due to odors, mosquitoes, or an excess of birds or other wildlife;
• other considerations: site-specific issues related to available gravel sources and climates that are conducive to
mosquito and weed growth can be causes for concern. Make sure that obtaining and installing the gravel is not only
cost-effective, but also done correctly, as it can be contaminated with fines, dirt, and debris. Use prewashed gravel if
possible to avoid this problem.
90 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

4.6.3 Waste Stabilization Ponds

Waste stabilization ponds (WSPs) are lined ponds or basins that treat wastewater through the physical action of settling and the
biological action of microbial digestion. Also known as sewage lagoons, they are popular because they are relatively inexpensive
and easy to design, install and maintain and can produce good quality effluent. They do, however, require large land areas.
In many applications, WSP systems use multiple units together to achieve primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. This
stepwise series is shown in Figure 4.31. However, in some cases aerated ponds can be utilized within or outside the series.
While these systems are frequently used for community wastewater management, in general they are valid DWMS options
(in series and apart) that are worthy of consideration for many applications including serving as the main treatment
component within septage management programs.

1 anaerobic 2 facultative 3 aerobic maturation

inlet 1 anaerobic outlet

2m - 5m

liner
sludge

2 facultative
inlet o2 o2 o2 o2 oxygen supply through surface contact outlet
1m - 2.5m

sludge
0.5m - 1.5m

3 aerobic maturation
inlet o2 o2 o2 o2 oxygen supply through surface contact outlet

Figure 4.31 Typical waste stabilization pond series (Compendium, 2014).

For basic overview of this basic WSP scheme, refer to the Compendium, pp. 110–111.

4.6.3.1 Anaerobic Ponds

In general, anaerobic ponds (AnPs) can be considered as a primary treatment step, as they anaerobically degrade and
settle organic matter and solids. However, they are presented here in the secondary treatment section due to their
frequent stepwise linkage (as seen in Figure 4.32a and b) with the other two major types of WSPs, facultative and aerobic
ponds, which are the secondary and tertiary treatment stages, respectively. This is not to say that AnPs, as a highly
effective primary treatment mechanism, cannot be used by themselves in sequence with non-pond (secondary and tertiary)
treatment steps. In fact, this scenario is often warranted given space requirements, as AnPs require less land for a given
flow than do the other pond types, which makes them more practical when finding sufficient land space becomes an issue.
In general, AnPs are deliberately not aerated, heated, or mixed and have deep basins from 2 to 4 m or even 5 m deep
(Compendium, 2014); deeper is better. These characteristics, particularly the depth, do not permit oxygen to reach the
bottom zone, allowing anaerobic conditions to dominate. In this respect, AnPs are different from shallower facultative
or aerobic ponds, as those conditions are similar to those occurring within an unheated anaerobic digester. However,
conventional digesters are typically used for sludge stabilization, whereas pond systems typically are used for both primary
and secondary wastewater treatment. That being said, AnPs and the following facultative ponds may be designed specifically
for fecal sludge treatment, which is illustrated in the case study from Dumaguete City, The Philippines, presented below.
 DWMS technologies 91

Figure 4.32 (a) Properly-desludged, well-maintained anaerobic pond within a system of all three pond types, some in series and
others in parallel, serving a large community in Arani, Bolivia (E. Symonds, personal communication, December 14, 2013); (b)
Poorly-maintained anaerobic pond, lacking a proper grit removal chamber and desludging services, within a similar pond
series serving a small town in the Cochabamba Valley of Bolivia (Verbyla, 2013).

For more technical and in-depth information, refer to US EPA (2002b) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet on
Anaerobic Lagoons: http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/alagoons.pdf.

4.6.3.2 Facultative Ponds

As the next step in the traditional WSP series, facultative waste stabilization ponds (FPs, shown in Figure 4.33a) are used
mainly for secondary treatment for municipal and industrial wastewater. These lined earthen ponds are usually excavated to
depths between 1 and 2.5 m (Compendium 2014) and are neither mechanically mixed nor aerated. The layer of water near
the surface contains dissolved oxygen due to atmospheric re-aeration and algal respiration, which supports aerobic and
facultative organisms. Sludge deposits accumulate at the bottom of the pond, where anaerobic organisms flourish. The
middle layer, termed the facultative zone, ranges from aerobic near the top to anaerobic at the bottom and supports
microbial degradation of organics and pathogens. As with AnPs, they can also be used in sequence with non-pond (primary
and tertiary) treatment technologies.

Figure 4.33 (a) Facultative pond serving 780 people in Alto Beni, Bolivia (Verbyla, 2013); (b) Two aerobic ponds in series treating
the effluent of a UASB reactor serving 1,300 people in Alto Beni, Bolivia (Verbyla, 2013).

For more technical and in-depth information, refer to US EPA (2002c) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet on
Facultative Lagoons: http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/faclagon.pdf.
92 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

4.6.3.3 Aerobic Ponds

Aerobic ponds (APs, shown in Figure 4.33b) complete the WSP series by providing final polishing through reducing pathogens
and nutrient levels. Also known as maturation or polishing ponds, they are shallow basins typically between 0.5 and 1.5 m deep
(Compendium, 2014). Dissolved oxygen concentrations are usually high due to wind and wave action that allow for natural
re-aeration, which combined with the effects of the UV radiation (which itself directly impairs pathogens' internal
functioning when the water column is so shallow) stimulates algal growth. The algae change the pH of the water outside of
the tolerable pH range of most pathogens and take up much of the phosphorus and nitrogen if the algae are harvested or
consumed by fish in aquaculture. Otherwise, those nutrients would likely be discharged and could pose a threat to
surrounding aquatic habitats. As with the above two pond types, they can also be used in sequence with non-pond (primary
and secondary) treatment steps.

For more detailed discussion, refer to Sasse (1998), pp. 99–103.

4.6.3.3.1 Design Strategy

Note: Some of these formulas and calculations may appear to be difficult or confusing. The authors toolkit described below
helps users apply these equations for their WSP projects. The procedure and associated math, concluded with an instructive
example with full calculations, are in the sections below.
The various configurations of WSP series are generally based on the initial influent strength. If the BOD of the influent
wastewater is moderately high – for these purposes, at least 400 mg/L – the first pond in the series (parallel pond-type
systems are not yet considered within the toolkit) will be anaerobic; otherwise, it will be an FP. If BOD is very high, one
or more AnPs will be needed to reduce BOD sufficiently before an FP can receive the wastewater. In all cases, those are
followed by one or more MPs to achieve sufficient pathogen removal. In general, the designation of pond series and
calculations for each pond’s sizing are dependent on several variables, all of which are described below:

• flow (Q), which is the daily volumetric loading rate of the influent, given in m3/d;
• organic loading, given in mg/L, for the influent (BODi) and also for effluent standard (BODe), which is taken to be at
most 50 mg/L;
• net evaporation (E), which is water loss from evaporation minus rainfall, given in mm/year;
• temperature (T), given in degrees Celsius, which influences BOD volumetric and surface loading rates;
• depth (D) of the overall site that can be dug based on soil conditions, given in meters.
Given that the literature has not settled on a convention for setting pond series based on BODi or CODi, the authors have
proposed a system, described below, whose principles are best explained by an example. If BODi is 600 mg/L, following
the formulas explained shortly will give BODe of around 37.5 using an AnP-FP-AP pond series, while using the same
series for a setting with BODi of 300 will give BODe of 18.75.
Since this is unnecessarily low based on the 50 mg/L BODe assumed standard, the AnP pond can be removed, which would
allow the FP to serve as the primary treatment mechanism and gives BODe of 37.5 as preferred. This phenomenon leads to the
preferential selection of the following pond series based on BODi, all based on the flexible assumption that BODe cannot
exceed 50 mg/L:

• for BODi greater than 4,444 mg/L, a five pond series of AnP-AnP-FP-AP-AP is used;
• for BODi greater than 1,333 mg/L, a four pond series of AnP-AnP-FP-AP is used;
• for BODi greater than 400 mg/L, a three pond series of AnP-FP-AP is used;
• for BODi less than or equal to 400 mg/L, a two pond series of FP-AP is used.
Full references to the below formulas (Kayombo et al., 2005) and this text are provided at the end of this section. These
resources have been synthesized into the following step-by-step procedure that simplifies calculations:

(1) After determining Q, BODi, BODe, T, E and D, BODi is used to set the pond series.
(2) Sizing calculations for the one or two AnPs (if needed) are undertaken. The AP BOD volumetric loading rate
(VLRBOD) is determined based on T using a simple step-wise function that assumes a minimum VLRBOD of
100 g/m3 for T , 10°C and 350 g/m3 for T . 25°C. Along with flow and BODi, it is used in Formula 1 shown
below. This calculates AnP volume, which divided by depth gives AnP surface area. Knowing that for WSPs, the
 DWMS technologies 93

length of each pond can be taken as three times that of its width, it is simple to find the AnP (and other ponds’)
length and width, which equals the square root of the ‘surface area divided by 3’. BODe for the AnP, which
becomes BODi for the following AnP or FP, is found by multiplying BODi by a value ranging from 0.60
(40 percent BOD reduction) for T , 10°C, and 0.30 (70 percent BOD reduction) for T . 25. The values within this
range of 0.30 to 0.60 are obtained from a simple step-wise function solely dependent on T.

BODi ∗ Q
Formula 1: AnP volume =
VLR

(3) Sizing calculations for the single FP are undertaken. The FP BOD surface area loading rate (SALRBOD) is determined
based on T using a function labeled Formula 2, shown below. It, along with BODi (BODe in Step 2) and Q, is used to
calculate FP surface area (Formula 3, below), which can be multiplied by D (taken as 2.1 m) to get FP volume. BODe is
found by multiplying BODi by the assumed removal factor of 75 percent.

Formula 2: FP SALRBOD = 350 ∗ (1.107 − (0.002 ∗ T))(T−20)

10 ∗ BODi ∗ Q
Formula 3: FP surface area =
SALR

(4) Sizing calculations for the one or two MPs are undertaken. MP surface area is based on Q, D (taken as 1.3 m), E and
hydraulic retention time (HRT). The latter term, utilized in the equations for other DWMS technology sizing, is
assumed to be five days for the purposes of this tool. Formula 4, shown below, demonstrates how MP is related to
those variables.

2 ∗ Q ∗ HRT
Formula 4: MP surface area =
2 ∗ D + 0.001 ∗ E
365

Example: a hypothetical scenario for a potential large meat-focused public market project is given. The market
managers decided to follow step-by-step planning process to determine the potential suitability of WSPs. The process went
as follows:
(1) They recruited a local engineer for data collection, who found that average Q was 50 m3/d, and that average
discharged organic loading (BODi) was around 1,600 mg/L. This BODi value led them within the toolkit to the
four pond AP-AP-FP-MP series. The site’s annual average temperature was 20°C, maximum usable soil depth was
4.8 m (which given the safety buffer soil depth of 0.3 m, meant that D was 4.5 m), and E was estimated to be
1,300 mm/yr.
(2) The toolkit used this data to estimate the AnP VLRBOD for both AnPs as 300 g BOD/m3 per day, which was used in
Formula 1 with the other data to calculate volume of 266.7 m3 and 106.7 m3 for the first and second AnPs,
respectively. Given D of 4.5 m, the tool calculated necessary surface areas of 87 and 42 m2 for the first and second
ponds, respectively. The back-to-back BODi reductions of 60 percent that characterized both ponds led to AnP
BODe of 256 mg/L.
(3) This 256 mg/L value was then taken as BODi for the FP. That number, along with Q and FP SALRBOD (calculated via
Formula 2 and found to be 350), was used automatically within the toolkit’s Formula 3 procedure to determine that
necessary FP surface area was 365.7 m2. Multiplied by the assumed depth of 2.1 m, this gave FP volume of
707.3 m3. This is slightly below the product of 2.1 and 365.7 because the basin has less volume than a rectangular
prism with those dimensions due to inward-sloping sidewalls. Given the assumed 75 percent FP BOD reduction,
this led to effluent with BODe of 64 mg/L.
(4) The toolkit finished the pond series sizing procedure by calculating necessary MP surface area using BODi of 64 mg/L
(from Step 3), Q, E and assumed D and DT of 1.3 m and 5 days, respectively. That surface area value came to 191 m2,
with volume coming to 233 m3 and final BODe of 32 mg/L. In summary, the tool estimated the four ponds’ overall
surface area (land) and volume (excavation) requirement to be 686 and 1,314 m3, respectively, which is roughly the
surface area of a square with side length of 26 m.
94 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Access the WSP design toolkit and site with details on the variables and other key aspects here: http://www.
iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/WastewaterSolutionsDesignToolsforEngineers#HWasteStabilizationPonds.

Waste stabilization ponds guidance related to source characteristics and site

limitations

• slope: ponds require large land parcels that are relatively level, with a 1 to 2 percent slope being ideal. Avoid using the
technology for sites with slopes greater than this that cannot be cost-effectively excavated or backfilled to ensure that
slope;
• depth above soils limiting conditions: the placement of APs, which require depths of 2 m and function best with basin
depths of around 4 to 5 m, can only be done in sites with very deep soils. This may imply the need for additional site
scoping and excavation of test holes to verify that the basin depth and buffer of 0.3 m can be safely achieved;
• local land use restrictions: nearby parcels may not permit the installation of such natural basins, which can cause
problems due to odors, mosquitoes, or excessive birds or other wildlife.

4.6.3.4 Aerated Ponds

In aerated ponds, oxygen is supplied mainly through mechanical or diffused aeration rather than by wind or wave action, or
algal photosynthesis (Figure 4.34). Aerated ponds are typically classified by the amount of mixing provided. A partial-mix
system provides only enough aeration to satisfy the oxygen requirements of the system and does not provide energy
to keep all total suspended solids in suspension, which is required for full mix systems that have greater treatment
effectiveness along with higher cost. In general, this need for electricity, although not very high at around 1 to 3 W per
cubic meter of pond volume (Sasse, 1998), and the expertise needed for construction and O&M generally make this a less
suitable technology for DWMS than the other pond types.

oxygen supply through aerators

o2 o2 o2
inlet outlet
2m - 6m

sludge

liner

Figure 4.34 Aerated pond schematic (Compendium, 2014).

For more technical and in-depth information on Aerated Lagoons refer to US EPA (2002d) Wastewater Technology
Factsheet on Aerated, Partial Mix Lagoons: http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/apartlag.pdf.
 DWMS technologies 95

Waste stabilization ponds used for septage management in Dumaguete, The Philippines

Dumaguete City is located on the island of Negros in the Vasayas region of The Philippines. In 2008, the city government
began planning for their septage management program, which involves septic tank desludging every five years. The
program is a joint effort between the city government, which designed and manages the treatment system, and the City
Water District which manages the collection program.
The septage treatment system uses a series of anaerobic and facultative pond cells (Figure 4.35a), and surface and
subsurface flow constructed wetlands (Figure 4.35b). Sludge drying beds are provided for dewatering the accumulated
biosolids, and other than two sludge pumps, the system is totally passive. It is capable of handling a daily load of 80
cubic meters of fecal sludge per day.

Figure 4.35 (a) Josie Antonio overlooking the waste stabilization ponds (Authors); (b) The horizontal subsurface flow
constructed wetland that in tandem with the surface flow wetland further treats the waste stabilization pond effluent
(Authors).

‘The system functions impressively well’, according to Josie Antonio, City Planning Officer and principal proponent of
the project. She also noted ‘our last test results showed that BOD of the effluent was better than 20 mg/L [relative to BODi of
5,000 mg/L], indicating a very high level of treatment, while our fish living in the final indicator pond appear to be very
healthy’. In order to achieve this success, it was necessary to conduct a flood study and install stream bank
stabilization dykes, as the system is located on the banks of the Okoy River. Also, flow variability is high and several
years were anticipated before the system was fully utilized.

More information on this case study can be found at: http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/

Project+7+-+Country+x.

4.6.4 Media Filters

Media filters are secondary wastewater treatment devices that treat primary effluent by passing it through media such as rock,
plastic or biomass. The media provide surface area where microbes become attached through a fixed film. As effluent passes over
the fixed film, the microbes consume the organic matter as food. Examples of the technology include trickling filters, cocopeat
filters, and sand filters. These ‘fixed growth’ systems are useful in land constrained areas, as they take up little space. Innovations
in media filter technology are resulting in products with higher efficiency and ease of O&M, all at a reduced cost.
One common example of media filter technology is the trickling filter, which is the aerobic version of an anaerobic filter. To
keep the biofilm and coarse rock supplement media partially aerated, wastewater is trickled onto the top surface while both the
top and bottom of the filter are ventilated (Figure 4.36). Ensuring this requires expert facility installation and O&M, along with
constant flow rate and electricity. These aspects make trickling filters feasible mostly for denser-settlement DWMS.
96 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Figure 4.36 Trickling filter schematic (Compendium, 2012).

The coconut fiber (coir) and the dust that remains when the coir is removed from crushed coconut shells (cocopeat) is
another biofilter medium used for secondary treatment. As shown in Figure 4.37, it is a low-cost fixed growth system that
has applicability for DWMS in coconut-producing regions of the world. The main benefits of cocopeat filters as secondary
treatment are their pollution reduction capabilities, lower land area needs and costs relative to CWs and WSPs, and rapid
setup time. The example shown treats wastewater from 700 faculty and students for less than 1 US cent per user per day.

Figure 4.37 (a) Cocopeat biofilter for Putatan Elementary School, Muntinlupa City, The Philippines using pressure distribution
(Authors); (b) Peat filter using gravity distribution (Authors).

Cocopeat media filters can achieve 80 percent to 90 percent reductions in pathogens, TSS and BOD for influent with BOD
up to 350 mg/L. They are able to flexibly manage secondary influent from residential or industrial wastewater streams with
inconsistent organic levels and flow rates, which makes them tailored for households or small institutions, although like with
all media filters special focus must be put on pretreatment for FOG.

Figure 4.38 Sand filter schematic (Hoover, 2013).

 DWMS technologies 97

Sand and gravel filters (Figure 4.38) are highly effective wastewater treatment units and have many DWMS applications.
They may be intermittently dosed or designed as recirculating high rate filters (although this is still experimental). The
technology has been used for years in water treatment applications, with more recent applications developed for
wastewater. Media selection and proper pretreatment are keys to long-term functionality. Sand must be of uniform, large
grain size, and free of fine particles. Proper grease management must be practiced, as remediating fouled media filters once
they are clogged with grease requires replacement, which is expensive and time-consuming.

For a basic overview of trickling filters, refer to the Compendium, pp. 120–121. For more technical and
in-depth information, refer to US EPA (2000f) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet on Trickling Filters: http://water.
epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_trickling_filter.pdf.
More information about cocopeat biofilter testing and treatment capability can be found at (Parker, 2011): http://www.
iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/CocopeatBiofiltrationSystems.
For more technical and in-depth information on sand filters, refer to US EPA (1999b) Technology Fact Sheet on
Intermittent Sand Filters: http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owm/upload/2005_07_14_isf.pdf.

4.6.5 Aerobic Systems

There are many different configurations of aerobic system technology. They may use fixed growth, suspended growth or a
combination of such to achieve wastewater treatment. Mostly, these technologies, except for rotating biological contractors,
pump oxygen into an aeration basin to support the rapid growth of aerobic bacteria in suspension that consume and lead to
high reductions in organic matter.
For DWMS application, aerobic treatment systems are most applicable to sites with limited land area and stringent local
requirements for effluent quality. Four aerobic technologies are presented to provide the reader with an overview. Review
the resources in the reference section for a broader discussion of aerobic technology. The four technologies presented in
this manual are:
• activated sludge;
• extended aeration package plants;
• Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBRs); and
• Rotating Biological Contactors (RBCs).
The activated sludge process has been utilized for more than 130 years and represents the backbone of municipal wastewater
secondary treatment around the world, as it can handle daily flows in the range of thousands to tens of thousands of cubic meters
per day. As seen in Figure 4.39, it aerates and suspends influent to allow aerobic and other bacteria to degrade the organics. That
bacteria-rich wastewater is then sent to a clarifying chamber, in which the bacteria clusters settle to the bottom. The more-
purified wastewater is then sent to a discharge or tertiary treatment mechanism, while the sludge can be removed and
partially recirculated back into the first chamber, where its bacterial clusters foster new bacterial growth and continue
aerobic degradation of new influent.

Figure 4.39 Activated sludge schematic (Compendium, 2012).

98 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

This process is often adapted for much smaller flows into a more comprehensive system, referred to as an extended aeration
package plant (Figure 4.40), that may be used within DWMS for sources such as hospitals, schools or subdivisions. The plant
simplifies the activated sludge process while adding various compartments for flow equalization (tanks), disinfection and
sludge holding and digestion, and in some cases, for primary settling. Enclosing these within a steel or concrete tank
creates an all-in-one unit that, depending on the presence of screening and primary solids settling, can in special cases
serve as the only treatment mechanism for sources with high flows and low organic loading.

Figure 4.40 Extended aeration system schematic (Hoover, 2013).

The SBR is yet another version of the activated sludge process in which the aeration and settling processes occur in one tank,
requiring less land area than the previous systems. Wastewater is processed in a variety of timed steps, which also involve flow
equalization and often primary clarification. All of these facets depend on the SBR design and purpose, which generally is to
treat low- or intermittent-flow sources of wastewater (US EPA, 1999c).
In contrast to the previous ‘suspended growth’ aerobic systems that use tanks, the RBC is an ‘attached growth’ system that
consists of a large rotating disk with maximized surface area. That provides space for biofilm formation for microbial
degradation of organics, which is enhanced by the periodic rotation of the disc into and out of water, which gives the
biofilm alternating aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Most RBC equipment must be imported, likely at great expense,
while like most other mechanized secondary treatment systems, they require expert installation and O&M along with a
continuous source of power. All of these aspects make RBCs applicable mostly for high flow sources managed by groups
with ample resources.

For basic overview of the activated sludge process, refer to the Compendium, pp. 124–125. For more technical and
in-depth information on extended aeration package plants refer to US EPA (2000g) Wastewater Technology Fact
Sheet on Package Plants: http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic/upload/package_plant.pdf.
For more technical and in-depth information on SBRs refer to US EPA (1999c) Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet on
Sequencing Batch Reactors: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_10_31_mtb_sbr_new.pdf.
For comprehensive overview of RBCs refer to this SSWM link (Spuhler, 2010b): http://www.sswm.info/category/
implementation-tools/wastewater-treatment/hardware/semi-centralised-wastewater-treatments/r.

Keys for selecting and planning secondary treatment systems

• understand regulatory discharge levels for treated effluent for the specific project, and utilize technologies that achieve
these levels;
• given that there are a wide variety of treatment options that might be suitable for a given application, do not be swayed by
sales pitches (especially related to the purchase of expensive mechanized options) without performing due diligence in
the technology selection process;
• understand the full life cycle costs of technologies being considered to include capital cost to install, recurring costs for
O&M, availability and cost of replacement parts, and longevity of the system. Learn about this by talking with owners of
nearby facilities using the technologies before any purchase is made, and check for references;
• review agreements with subcontractors to verify that construction will meet all local and national requirements, tanks will
be leak tested, the system will be started up and tested prior to turnover, and a full O&M plan will be provided
upon completion.
 DWMS technologies 99

4.7 TERTIARY TREATMENT

Even after secondary treatment, pathogen levels may be too high for safe discharge or reuse. Further treatment for microbial
reduction can be achieved through filtration and disinfection, described in the following sections.

4.7.1 Tertiary Filtration

In some cases, when BOD and pathogen levels (especially for protozoans) in secondary effluent are still much higher than those
required for discharge, DWMS should use a tertiary filtration step. This can involve membrane filtration, although slow sand
filtration (shown in Figure 4.41) is generally less expensive and produces excellent results.

Figure 4.41 Slow sand filter in construction, showing gravel and sand layering, near Tullamore, Ireland (Molloy, 2013).

For more information about how tertiary filtration, clarification and other additional steps are used, especially within
treatment plants to counteract high Phosphorus levels, refer to this US EPA (2007) resource: http://www.epa.gov/
region10/pdf/tmdl/awt_report.pdf.

4.7.2 Disinfection
There are three common disinfection methods that may be appropriate for DWMS, which are
• radiation using ultraviolet (UV) light;
• chemical disinfection using chlorine;
• physical disinfection using ozone.
Since ozonation is rarely used in developing country settings, this manual will focus on disinfection by UV light and
chlorination.
Ultraviolet light is a natural component of sunlight and can also be generated through special light bulbs. The higher
energies of the ultraviolet spectrum are effective at inactivating microorganisms. While artificially-generated UV light from
special bulbs is commonly used for disinfecting wastewater, it is mostly useful for large systems with high flow rates.

For more technical and in-depth information on UV bulb disinfection refer to US EPA (1999d) Wastewater Technology
Fact Sheet on Ultraviolet Disinfection: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_uv.pdf.

However, natural UV disinfection is practiced frequently in developing countries using shallow ponds, called maturation,
aerobic, or polishing ponds as referred to in Section 4.6.3.3. These ponds, which can be installed as stand-alone units apart from
WSP series, are designed with depths shallow enough to allow sunlight to penetrate throughout and disinfect the total depth of
the water column. With appropriate loading from a secondary treatment system, and routine O&M to keep the surface free of
floating and emergent vegetation, effluent can be sufficiently disinfected to meet discharge standards.
While polishing ponds have obvious advantages, the primary disinfection method used in water and wastewater treatment of
all shapes and sizes worldwide is chlorination. Chlorine degrades pathogens upon contact for a short time, as long as it
concentrated enough to avoid being entirely consumed by organic matter in the wastewater. Effective chlorination requires:
• proper chlorine concentrations;
• thorough mixing, to combine the dissolved chlorine with the wastewater;
• varying contact times, often between 20 minutes to 30 minutes depending upon ambient temperature.
100 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

The proper concentration of chlorine is added to the secondary effluent either as a diluted liquid that is dosed into the
wastewater stream through pumps, or as a solid in the form of tablets that impart chlorine to the effluent as they dissolve.
That concentration is based mostly on the how much organic matter is in the influent, as that can alter the composition of
the chlorine and make it less effective for disinfection. This amount of chlorine that has been ‘consumed’ by the organic
matter is called ‘chlorine demand’.
While the feeder equipment costs are relatively low, the costs for the chlorine solution and O&M are considerably higher.
The solid chlorine tablets are commercially available and are loaded into the stack delivery tube of the feeder (Figure 4.42).
Routine cleaning is required to remove caked material in the tubes that can restrict complete mixing.

Figure 4.42 Stack chlorinator schematic (Jones, 2004).

The liquid chlorinators described above utilize liquid chlorine, typically in the form of sodium hypochlorite, which is liquid
bleach. The bleach is mixed with the water in a feed tank, and a small metering pump is used to dose the effluent to the
wastewater entering the contact basin. This is relatively simple technology but requires routine O&M.

For more technical and in-depth information on chlorination refer to US EPA (1999e) Wastewater Technology Fact
Sheet on Chlorine Disinfection: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_chlo.pdf.

Management considerations for disinfection systems

• certain pathogens (mainly protozoans) in the influent can be resistant to low doses of chlorine. Therefore, it might be
necessary to opt for UV disinfection if the wastewater source is known to have high protozoan levels or if
management of sludge (rich in protozoans) is perceived to be a weakness in the DWMS;
• if disinfection systems are mandated for a specific DWM application, monitoring the disinfection effectiveness through
routine microbial laboratory tests is also likely needed. Laboratory testing is also useful because it can assess the
secondary effluent chlorine demand, gives the initial chlorine concentration needed for dosage. Although rough
estimates of chlorine demand for various wastewater sources can be found in the literature or by asking others for
their experience, it is advisable to look into the laboratory testing route. This all suggests the need to verify local
laboratory capabilities when assessing full life cycle costs;
• contacting chlorine, even in low dosages, can be hazardous for humans, and can be lethal to aquatic life in
general. Wear eye and hand protection at all times when handling this corrosive and toxic substance, and ensure
that the residual levels do not exceed discharge limits, especially if the receiving water body is a delicate and
valued ecosystem.
 DWMS technologies 101

4.8 END OF THE CYCLE – SAFE DISCHARGE OR REUSE

Discharge from DWMS refers to the drainage of the treated effluent off-site, into ditches or combined sewers, or directly into
streams, rivers, estuaries, or oceans. Discharge from DWMS is permissible in most areas as long as the effluent complies with
the limitations set by national, state or local governments. This generally entails permits that specify the type, number, and
frequency of laboratory tests that must be run to verify that standards are met.
As mentioned in Chapters 2 and 3, reuse of treated effluent (often supplemented by biosolids usage) most frequently
involves irrigation on landscape plants or food and non-food crops, and to a lesser extent, application for aquaculture,
floating plant ponds, or toilet-flushing. Follow best practices to prevent cross contamination when dealing with reuse water
plumbing inside of buildings, and over irrigation which may result in effluent runoff.

Safe reuse of wastewater for agriculture

In rural and peri-urban areas of most developing countries, the reuse of wastewater for irrigation is a common practice.
Wastewater is often the only source of water for irrigation in these areas. Even in areas where other water sources
exist, small-plot farmers often prefer partially or untreated wastewater because its high nutrient content reduces or even
eliminates the need for expensive chemical fertilizers. Given this practice, the health and environmental risks do need
to be carefully considered, but at the same time the importance of such reuse for the livelihoods of countless
smallholders must also be considered.
These principles and safe reuse methods are the subject of a training handbook for farmer field schools published
by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, funded by the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water
and Food. Titled ‘On farm practices for safe use of wastewater in urban and peri-urban horticulture’, it offers
easy-to-understand explanations and useful practice exercises.

Download the guidebook (Beernaerts, 2012) and investigate the CGIAR program here: http://cgspace.cgiar.
org/bitstream/handle/10568/21791/FFS%20Handbook_low.pdf?sequence=1.

The other major reuse processes include aquaculture and floating plant ponds. Aquaculture is the harvesting of fish that
consume algae and other organisms within nutrient-rich water enhanced by the addition of the treated wastewater. The fish
ponds require warm, tropical climates, and the fish must be able to tolerate water with low dissolved oxygen. While the
fish do not greatly improve water quality, their economic and nutritional value (either as human or livestock feedstock) can
offset system capital costs and provide a cheap source of protein.
The addition of effluent into floating plant ponds can be used to grow biomass in the form of water hyacinth, protein-rich
duckweed and other macrophytes whose roots take up nutrients and further purify the effluent. These ponds are typically
shallow and often utilize mechanical aeration, as their primary purpose is BOD and solids removal, while producing
biomass. The biomass may have local economic value for use as animal feed, compost (as shown in the case study below),
or green waste for processes such as anaerobic digestion. Treated effluent may also be used for interior use in buildings for
toilet flushing in some areas, but strict controls on effluent quality and plumbing standards are required. In such situations,
reuse plumbing is color-coded, and devices that protect potable water plumbing from cross-connections are mandated. As
the price for potable water increases and its availability decreases, more innovative methods of effluent reuse and recycling
will follow.

4.9 DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF REQUIRED TREATMENT

Determining the level of wastewater treatment required to meet specific discharge or reuse standards is an important step in the
technology selection for DWMS. Making this determination in the planning stages of project development is critical. Such
standards are necessary to ensure that the surrounding environment, particularly nearby waters intended for full-body
contact or as drinking water supplies, are not adversely impacted by the discharge, and that aquatic life and human health
are protected in reuse and other cases. Failure to provide enough treatment can result in notices of violation, fines,
compliance orders, or mandatory retrofitting of the DWMS with additional treatment capacity, which implies the need to
102 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

check with regulatory officials to fully understand discharge requirements for specific projects. On the other hand, providing
more treatment than is needed may result in unnecessary capital and operational expenditures.

Co-managed wastewater resource recovery in the water-scarce province of Punata,

Bolivia

Farmers in Punata reuse 100% of treated domestic wastewater to irrigate fodder crops during the driest half of the year. The
wastewater treatment and resource recovery system consists of three AnPs in parallel, two FPs in parallel, three MPs in
parallel, and a network of open channels to divert treated water to farms. It is co-managed by the municipal water
company (AMAPAS) and a local farmers cooperative, which share different O&M responsibilities. For example, farmers
trim vegetation around the lagoons and maintain irrigation canals (farmers discussing O&M of a nearby canal with
researchers in Figure 4.43a), while AMAPAS is responsible for desludging the lagoons and maintaining the sewer
collection system. The farmers recover nutrients from the wastewater by harvesting floating aquatic plants from the
maturation ponds (Figure 4.43b shows pile harvested from pond at left). These are used either as animal feed or as
compost, which after production in large piles is then mixed with topsoil to increase soil fertility.

Figure 4.43 (a) One farmer discusses resource recovery and O&M with a research group from the Universidad Mayor de
San Simon (Verbyla, 2013); (b) Pile of algae dried after collection from maturation pond at left, with algae in maturation pond
soon to be collected at right, in Punata, Bolivia (Verbyla, 2013).

However, flow design is not perfect, leading to short-circuiting and limited treatment efficiency (Mercado et al. 2013), with
,90% helminth egg removal and ,99% protozoan removal (Iriarte et al. 2013). While such co-management pond systems
and reuse practices have great potential for small-scale application in water-scarce regions, more research and better
design is needed to successfully scale up the treatment and irrigation systems to the size seen in Punata.

4.9.1 Meeting Discharge and Reuse Standards

Standards for discharging treated wastewater into the environment are highly variable and depend upon national standards,
and in many cases, local requirements for specific watersheds. Often, the discharge standards are determined by the quality
of the surface water where the discharge is intended. In The Philippines Class A waters are pristine and highly protected,
requiring a very high degree of wastewater treatment. Class C rivers, typical in urban areas on the other hand, are already
highly impacted by water pollution, and permit higher discharge concentrations of organic matter, suspended solids and
pathogens.
In many developing countries, regulatory effluent standards are set at the national level for organic matter, suspended solids,
various chemical compounds or nutrients, and FOG. An example for India is shown in Table 4.1, which lists those national
standards based on the type of wastewater discharge (or irrigation reuse) as taken from their Environment Protection Act,
Second Amendment Rules. Also, it is useful to consider how E. coli concentrations can be used to set reuse standards. This
is demonstrated by the below reclaimed water classification system (as with Table 4.1, this is displayed not as endorsement
 DWMS technologies 103

but simply for use as background information for planner’s reference in their own research) from the state of South Australia
(Bolan et al., 2008):

• Class A = less than 10 E. Coli/100 ml. Permitted uses include unrestricted irrigation of agricultural crops, such as spray
or flood irrigation of surface crops and any irrigation of root crops;
• Class B = less than 100 E. Coli/100 ml. Permitted uses include drip or furrow irrigation of surface crops, subsurface
irrigation of root crops, and spray irrigation of some crops with harvest controls; and
• Class C = less than 1,000 E. Coli/100 ml. Permitted uses include subsurface irrigation of surface crops, drip or furrow
irrigation of crops with no ground contact and flooding or crops skinned before consumption with harvest controls.

Table 4.1 Government of India 1993 discharge standards for all wastewater (adapted from Reddy, 2010).

Parameter Inland surface Public Land for Marine coastal

(mg/L) water sewer irrigation areas
Suspended solids 100 600 200 100
Oil and grease 10 20 10 20
Residual chlorine 1 n/a n/a 1
Ammonia Nitrogen 50 50 n/a 50
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 100 n/a n/a 100
Free Ammonia (NH3) 5 n/a n/a 5
BOD 30 350 100 100
COD 250 250 250 250

Helminth and virus concentrations are also the subject of reuse guidelines, as promoted by the World Health Organization
(WHO). To meet their health-based targets, wastewater reused in agriculture should have a mean value of less than one
helminth egg per liter for 90 percent of all samples, while based on irrigation and crop conditions, there must be 99 percent
to 99.99999 percent reduction in rotavirus concentration for safe reuse.

The WHO volumes on wastewater use in agriculture (Volume 2), wastewater and excreta use in aquaculture (Volume
3), and excreta and graywater use in agriculture (Volume 4) should be consulted prior to engaging in reuse. For further
description, read the WHO (2006) Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Graywater: http://www.
who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuww/en/.

Practical applications for effluent reuse

The ability to reuse treated effluent may be a significant driver for increasing willingness-to-pay for wastewater treatment.
Follow this practical guidance to maximize that added value:

• Wastewater treatment to reuse standards may be expensive. Consider performing cost-benefit analysis for clarifying
the proper level of treatment based on the costs and benefits of desired reuse activity and necessary additional
treatment. That can constitute usage of additional DWMS technologies or coordinated practices such as drip or
spray irrigation, or produce washing, disinfection, peeling or cooking (which have various microbe percent reduction
estimates, as per the WHO Guidelines) that should be well-understood when planning reuse for irrigation;
• Consider how flow variability might impact reuse activities. For critical needs, such as agricultural irrigation, verify that
alternative flow sources exist during times of low wastewater flow; and
• O&M of treatment systems for reuse, including filtration and disinfection systems, is critical to maintaining environmental
health and safety. Determine special O&M requirements for reuse equipment and detail them in the O&M plan.
104 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

REFERENCES
Beernaerts I. (2012). On Farm Practices for Safe Use of Wastewater in Urban and Peri-urban Horticulture. http://cgspace.cgiar.org/
bitstream/handle/10568/21791/FFS%20Handbook_low.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 6 December 2013)
Bolan N., Laurenson S., Kunhikrishnan A., Naidu R., McKay J. and Keremane G. (2008). Northern Adelaide Plains Recycling Scheme –
Champion in the Management of Recycled Water for Sustainable Production and Environmental Protection. http://irrigation.org.
au/documents/publications-resources/conference_papers_2008/200508_Stream3_Bolan1.pdf (accessed 17 July 2013)
Casey P. (1996). Alternative Sewers: A Good Option for Many Communities. http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publications/pipline/
PL_FA96.pdf (accessed 11 August 2013)
Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (2009). CIDWT Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Glossary, 2nd edn,
2009. http://www.onsiteconsortium.org/Glossary2009.pdf (accessed 4 April 2013)
Foster V. (2001). Lower Costs with Higher Benefits - El Alto Bolivia/Pilot Project. http://www.susana.org/docs_ccbk/susana_download/2-
569-foster-2001b-lower-costs-higher-benefits-wsp-en.pdf (accessed 17 March 2013)
Gauss P. (2008). Constructed Wetlands: A Promising Wastewater Treatment System for Small Localities. http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.
org/files/publications/ConstructedWetlands.pdf (accessed 12 November 2013)
Iriarte M., Mercado A., Verbyla M. E., Fuentes G., Rocha J. P. and Almanza M. (2013). Monitoring Indicators and Pathogenic
Microorganisms into Two Stabilization Pond Systems in the Upper Valley of Cochabamba. Proceedings from the XV Congreso
Bolivariano de Ingeniería Sanitaria y Medio Ambiente, ABIS-AIDIS, November 20–22, 2013, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Jones D. (2004) Figure adapted by “The Disinfection Question – Answers for Onsite Systems”, National Environmental Services Center.
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/WW/publications/pipline/PL_SP04.pdf (accessed 4 March 2013)
Jones D., Bauer J., Wise R. and Dunn A. (2001). Small Community Cluster Wastewater Systems. http://www.extension.purdue.edu/
extmedia/ID/ID-265.pdf (accessed 12 February 2013)
Kayombo S., Mbwette T. S. A. and Katima J. H. Y. (2005). Waste Stabilization Ponds and Constructed Wetlands Design Manual. http://
www.unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/Publications/Water&Sanitation/PondsAndWetlands_Design_Manual.pdf (accessed 27 July 2011).
Mara D., Lane J., Scott B. and Trouba D. (2010). Sanitation and Health. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000363 (accessed 12 November 2013)
Mercado A., Coronado O., Quinteros V. H., Verbyla M. E. and Oakley S. M. (2013). Evaluation of the Efficiency of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Punata, Cochabamba, Bolivia: The Importance of Operation and Maintenance. Proceedings from the XV
Congreso Bolivariano de Ingeniería Sanitaria y Medio Ambiente, ABIS-AIDIS, November 20–22, 2013, Cochabamba, Bolivia.
Molloy Precast Products, Ltd. (2013). Percolation and Tertiary Treatment. http://molloyprecast.com/percolation/tertiary.html (accessed 29
November 2013)
Parker, C. (2011). Cocopeat Biofiltration Systems. http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/CocopeatBiofiltrationSystems
(accessed 12 April 2013)
Reddy K. L. D. (2010). TTI Consulting Engineers India, Ltd. Detailed Project Report: Design of Sewerage System in Kaveri Nagar of
KR Puram CMC Area, Bangalore. Water and Sanitation for the Urban Poor-India, Bangalore.
Sasse L. (1998). DEWATS: Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Developing Countries. http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/
reference_attachments/SASSE%201998%20DEWATS%20Decentralised%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20in%20Developing%
20Countries_0.pdf (accessed 5 October 2012).
Spuhler D. (2008). Anaerobic Filters. http://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/wastewater-treatment/hardware/semi-
centralised-wastewater-treatments-7 (accessed 25 May 2013)
Spuhler D. (2010a). UASB Reactor. http://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/wastewater-treatment/hardware/semi-
centralised-wastewater-treatments/u (accessed 25 May 2013)
Spuhler D. (2010b). Rotating Biological Contractors. http://www.sswm.info/category/implementation-tools/wastewater-treatment/
hardware/semi-centralised-wastewater-treatments/r (accessed 25 May 2013)
Thermaco, Inc. (2013). About Us. http://www.trapzilla.com/about-us.php (accessed 2 December 2013)
UN-HABITAT (2008). Constructed Wetlands Manual. http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2983 (accessed 8
December 2012)
US EPA (1999a). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Mound Systems. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/mound.pdf
US EPA (1999b). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Intermittent Sand Filters. http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owm/upload/
2005_07_14_isf.pdf
US EPA (1999c). Wastewater technology fact sheet – Sequencing batch reactors. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_
10_31_mtb_sbr_new.pdf
US EPA (1999d). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Ultraviolet Disinfection. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_
06_28_mtb_uv.pdf
US EPA (1999e). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Chlorine Disinfection. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_
28_mtb_chlo.pdf
US EPA (2000a). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Septic System Tank. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_
mtb_septic_system_tank.pdf
US EPA (2000b). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Septic Tank Systems for Large Flow Applications. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/
wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_septic_tank_large_flow_app.pdf
 DWMS technologies 105

US EPA (2000c). Decentralized Systems Technology Fact Sheet – Septic Tank Leaching Chamber. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/
wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_septic_tank_leaching_chamber.pdf
US EPA (2000d). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Free Water Surface Wetlands. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/
2002_06_28_mtb_free_water_surface_wetlands.pdf
US EPA (2000e). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Subsurface Flow. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_
mtb_wetlands-subsurface_flow.pdf
US EPA (2000f). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Trickling Filters. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/
2002_06_28_mtb_ trickling_filter.pdf
US EPA (2000g). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Package Plants. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic/upload/package_plant.
pdf
US EPA (2002a). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Sewers, Pressure. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_10_
15_mtb_presewer.pdf (accessed 5 November 2012)
US EPA (2002b). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Anaerobic Lagoons. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_10_15_
mtb_alagoons.pdf
US EPA (2002c). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Facultative Lagoons. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_
10_15_mtb_faclagon.pdf
US EPA (2002d). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet – Aerated, Partial Mix Lagoons. http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/apartlag.pdf
US EPA (2007). Advanced Wastewater Treatment to Achieve Low Concentration of Phosphorus. http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/
tmdl/awt_report.pdf (accessed 12 Novemver 2013)
Verbyla M. (2013). Recent publications on the use of stabilization ponds in wastewater treatment and resource recovery systems. http://usf-
reclaim.org/2013/12/stabilizationponds/ (accessed 13 December 2013)
Vymazal J. and Kröpfelová K. (2009). Removal of organics in constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow: a review of the field
experience. Science of the Total Environment, 407, 3911–3922. http://www.jlakes.org/web/Removal-organic-constructed-wetlands-
STE2009.pdf
Wanasen S. A. (2003). Upgrading Conventional Septic Tanks by Integrating In-Tank Baffles. http://www.sswm.info/sites/default/files/
reference_attachments/SRI%20ANANT%20W%202003%20Upgrading%20Conventional%20Septic%20Tanks%20by%20Integrating
%20In%20Tank%20Baffles.pdf (accessed 7 October 2013)
Winblad U. and Simpson-Hebert M. (2004). Ecological Sanitation – Revised and Enlarged Edition. Stockholm Environment Institute,
Stockholm, SE. ISBN: 91-88714-98-5.
World Health Organization (2006). Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Graywater, Vol 2–4. http://www.who.int/
water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuww/en/ (accessed 11 August 2013)
Chapter 5
Selecting wastewater technologies

This chapter will

• Discuss how selection of DWMS technologies can be informed by understanding the characteristics of a project’s source
and site and the available land area for managing the wastewater;
• Compare advantages and disadvantages of different DWMS technologies; and
• Help practitioners select the best technologies for their projects.

Figure 5.1 Sequencing Batch Reactor wastewater treatment package plant for public market and commercial center in San
Fernando City, La Union, The Philippines. It is one example of how limited land availability can be the key driver in the DWMS
technology decision-making process (Authors).
108 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

About Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1 is an example of how a highly mechanized technology might be appropriate for developing country settings. The
goal of the project was to improve sanitation in the central business district in San Fernando City in La Union Province on the
island of Luzon in the northern Philippines. San Fernando City does not have a centralized wastewater system, so DWMS are
required to address wastewater discharges. For this project, wastewater from a number of commercial sources, including the
public market, is collected in pump tanks that send the wastewater to the treatment plant. For this project, lack of space, high
flow volume and high wastewater strength were the limiting factors.
To address this complex problem, system designers selected the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) with chlorine disinfection
technology. SBRs, described in Chapter 4, are a form of aerobic treatment, but unlike their activated sludge counterparts, they
require very little O&M from city maintenance personnel.
Among development experts, there is a debate about the merits of using mechanized technologies such as the
controller-based SBR for wastewater projects. Many people believe that they are too complex and cities will not maintain
them, and that electricity is too expensive and systems will be shut off to save power. While this may certainly be true of
some areas, the real question is who will make this determination. For the San Fernando project, it was the city with
support from the development team that decided upon this technology. The decision was based on the local capacity of the
city engineering department and its staff to properly operate the system, the level of interest in improving sanitary
conditions in the city expressed by the local and regional governments, and the support from stakeholders who were
involved in the project from the outset.
In this case, now five years after its installation, it appears this was a sound decision, as the system is still functioning
properly and has lived up to its expectations. San Fernando City provides a good example of the bottom-up planning
process at work and how DWMS technology decision making can and should be a stakeholder-driven process. It is
interesting to note that the early success of the public market project in San Fernando City has led to replication of the
process for new wastewater systems for their slaughterhouse, a community interceptor system, and a newer comprehensive
program for septage management. San Fernando City is well on its way to adopting DWMS as a viable model for
wide-scale sanitation improvement throughout its urban areas. For more information about San Fernando City’s
wastewater interventions, visit its sanitation webpage at www.sfluseptage.blogspot.com.

5.1 INTERPRETING THE DATA COLLECTED FROM THE SOURCE AND SITE
Now that the source has been characterized and the site evaluated, the designer can begin to make some decisions regarding
technology selection for the wastewater management system. That starts by assessing the data collected and determining the
limiting conditions and specific opportunities presented by the project. The data collected up to this point can be summarized in
the checklist represented as Table 5.1.

5.1.1 Flow to Land Availability Ratio Concept

Determining the land area that is available for the given volume of wastewater to be treated is a critical input for identifying
appropriate technologies. After that is determined, the Flow to Land Availability Ratio (F:L) may be used to indicate which
types of DWMS technologies might or might not be appropriate for the source and site. The F:L ratio is a number that is
expressed in liters per day per square meter of available land:

F:L = Design flow (L/day)/Land area available (square meters)

Different wastewater management technologies have different space requirements. Sewage lagoons for example require ample
land area, whereas aerobic treatment systems for the same flow have much lower space requirements. The F:L ratio helps
quantify this concept.
In general terms, the higher the F:L ratio (more flow per square meter of available area), the more intensive the wastewater
management needs to be. Continuing with the example, sewage lagoons and constructed wetlands are usually passive
technologies requiring relatively little in the way of management, other than some periodic maintenance. Aerobic systems
on the other hand, are highly mechanized and require significant O&M and electricity. These two technologies represent
both ends of the spectrum of land requirement.
Refer to Table 5.2 where technologies are roughly ranked according to F:L ratio. Interpreting the table is simple; if the F:L
for a source and site is above the recommended F:L range for a certain DWMS technology, that generally means that there is
 Table 5.1 Summary checklist needed for technology consideration.

Parameters Description Yes No

Flow rate Has the design wastewater flow rate been determined?
Flow strength Has the organic loading rate been determined?
Flow variability Do flows vary daily, weekly or seasonally? Will flow equalization be useful?
Nutrients and other Will special nutrient, grease, lint, trash, temperature, pH or other management be required?
considerations
Site(s) selection and area(s) Upon sketching the parcel, have the land surface areas for DWMS management been estimated?
Soil horizons’ characteristics Have the soils been evaluated for depth, basic properties, and seasonally high groundwater/other
limiting factors?
Site slope and topography Has the nature of the site’s slope and landscape been identified and recorded?
Site LTAR and other soils If soil dispersal is an option for the effluent, has an LTAR been estimated?
concerns If subsurface structures will be installed, has the stability of the soils been assessed?
Selecting wastewater technologies

Surface waters Have surface waters and related flood zones been identified and addressed?
Land use Have surrounding land use and potential conflicts been identified and addressed?
Utilities and pre-existing DWMS Are electricity and/or water available at the chosen locations, and have other infrastructure concerns
such as pre-existing DWMS been identified and addressed?
Access Is access to the site for installation, O&M and other equipment sufficient and secure?

Reuse and regulatory aspects Have reuse opportunities and potential limiting regulations been identified and addressed?
109
110 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

insufficient space on the parcel for that technology, and that another one with a greater F:L range should be chosen. While there
are of course many other non-flow rate and non-land-area related factors that go into technology selection, which means that
these F:L ranges can often be very flexible, the three ranges shown in Table 5.2, paired with their appropriate technologies,
serve as good initial selection guidance.

Technology Selection for Wastewater Management at LORMA Medical Center:

Based on the source characterization and site evaluation, the management at LORMA knew the following:

• They had a small site and large flow (high F:L) that needed a highly mechanized DWMS;
• Due to the potential for floods, an above-ground system would be required;
• Reuse of the treated effluent was not a consideration, as management favored a discharging system;
• A gravity sewer could be used to connect the existing septic tanks, but a lift station would be required to pump the
wastewater up to the treatment plant;
• Grease management was required due to the food preparation activities, but space for an outside grease interceptor
was limited, so under-the-sink grease traps would be used;
• Lint management was required do to on-site laundry washing, and individual lint traps for each machine were chosen as
that pre-treatment method.

An evaluation of the system four years after it was installed indicates that it is working well (Figure 5.2). The average O&M
cost is approximately $175 per month including the operators’ salary, electricity to run the system, and supply of treatment
chemicals. This is a highly successful solution that indicates that even in developing country settings, there are applications
for mechanized wastewater management systems.

Figure 5.2 The LORMA Medical Center SBR system installed by BioSafe, Inc. The cost was P 2 million ($46,000 USD),
which was paid for by the facility owners (Authors).

For the LORMA project, management contacted a number of service providers and received quotations from several
before selecting BioSafe, Inc. From this experience, LORMA President, Dr. Rufino Macagba offers the following lessons
learned:

• the decision-makers should do their homework, starting with identifying at least three contractors using
recommendations from other owners or operators of similar facilities that have already implemented systems;
• before selecting a bid, check references and verify that the proprietor is licensed to operate in the area and is in good
standing;
• visit similar installations by the contractor and talk with owners about their experiences. This will help the implementer
get a sense of what the system will look like once it is installed;
• ask for a construction schedule along with project milestones. Base payment on completion of milestones;
• ensure that the contactor is working with local regulators to secure all required permits and that all fees are paid;
• have a contract that specifies the services contracted for and the timeframe for delivery.
 Selecting wastewater technologies 111

Table 5.2 F:L ratio and how it relates to technology selection.

F:L Ratio Level of Appropriate Appropriate

Range Mechanization Technologies – Technologies –
Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment
Generally less Little to no Anaerobic ponds • soil dispersal systems in
than 100 mechanization clayey soils;
• drip irrigation systems;
• facultative ponds;
• aerobic ponds;
• constructed wetlands
Generally Some mechanization, Anaerobic digester • soil dispersal systems in
between 100 such as pumping sandy soils;
and 500 systems • mound systems;
• aerated ponds;
• media filters
Generally Often full Septic tanks, ABRs • activated sludge;
greater than 500 mechanization • SBRs;
• RBCs;
• extended aeration

With this information, and that from Table 5.1, the practitioner has enough information to start identifying which
technologies might be appropriate for their specific project. The following sections will address how potentially appropriate
technologies can be further narrowed down to the most suitable ones given the specific source flow and site characteristics
of the project, as well as the technologies’ various resource requirements.

5.2 TECHNOLOGY SELECTION STRATEGIES

The purpose of the following sections is to organize the information about each of the technologies discussed so far in this
manual, so as to give additional guidance for the selection process. The guidance is not intended to be exhaustive, as there
are dozens of wastewater technologies that might be used for any given wastewater management need, and new
technologies are being developed each year. Most fall within the categories presented or are close enough to others so that
the reader can make comparisons. More importantly, the information is provided so that readers can better understand the
relationship between source characteristics and the site constraints or limiting conditions, and how considering both can
lead towards effective DWMS technology selection.
Tables 5.3 to 5.7 list various characteristics of the presented DWMS technologies grouped based on their order within the
DWMS Developmental Model schematic, which groups technologies as follows:
• pretreatment technologies (Table 5.3);
• conveyance technologies (Table 5.4);
• primary treatment technologies (Table 5.5);
• secondary treatment technologies (Table 5.6);
• tertiary treatment technologies (Table 5.7).
The tables rate how each DWMS technology can be defined in terms of its source and site considerations as well as cost, O&M
and treatment effectiveness. The tables simply intend to help compare general technologies and are not to be considered as full
recommendations for the selection of any technologies for a given project. In general, readers are encouraged to use the
information in the tables to make a general assessment of which technologies might be appropriate for their given needs,
and to then further research technologies prior to making final selections. Sources of additional information may include
the references provided in this manual, contractors that are providing wastewater system services, users of wastewater
technologies, local government officials, and civil society groups that may be locally engaged in this field.

For more in-depth comparison of most of the primary and secondary treatment technologies described in the following
tables, refer to pp 234 and other sections of Marcos von Sperling’s publication on biological wastewater treatment:
http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Articles/DevelopingCountriesTitlesfromIWAPublishingFreeto
Download/Wastwater.pdf.
 112

Table 5.3 Pre treatment technology comparison guide, based on appropriate levels for the various key parameters (‘any’ is any level of the parameter is accepted, and ‘N/A’ means the
parameter is not applicable for the technology).

Technology Flow Flow Flow Space Site Slope Need for Cost O&M Treatment Other
Rate Strength Variability Needs Tolerated Good, effectiveness concerns
Tolerated Deep
Soils
Under the sink Low Medium Low – can Low Any N/A Low High – should Medium May generate odor in the
grease trap wash out service daily kitchen when serviced
during high
flows

Outdoor Medium Any Any High – usually Low Medium Medium Low – should Medium Must be traffic-rated if
grease to high installed in pump the tank installed in parking area;
interceptor parking areas every few collected grease is
months saturated and not useful
as feedstock for
commercial products

High efficiency Any High Any Medium – can Any Low High Medium – High Product may not be locally
grease be installed remove grease available; collected
interceptor inside the every month; can grease is nearly pure and
kitchen or be done by hand can be used as feedstock
outside the or with pump for biodiesel or other
facility truck products

Trash trap Any Any Any Low Any N/A Low High – clean Medium Odor if not regularly
daily maintained; sewer
clogging if not cleaned
often

Lint trap Any Any Any Low N/A N/A Low High – clean Medium Products adapted for use
daily on individual machines, or
entire system
How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries
Table 5.4 Sewerage technology comparison guide, based on appropriate levels for the various key parameters (‘any’ is any level of the parameter is accepted, and ‘N/A’ means the
parameter is not applicable for the technology).

Technology Flow Flow Flow Land Site Slope Need for Good, Cost O&M Treatment Other concerns
Rate Strength Variability Needs Tolerated Deep Soils effectiveness
Tolerated
Any Any Any – make Low Any – 1% to 2% Low – generally Low Low N/A Keep large solids
sure to size for gravity flow; excavated at and trash out of the
for peak use drop boxes shallow depths sewer; use sealed
flows for steep sites and locking access
ports for safety
Building sewers

Low to Low Low to Low Low Low to medium Low Medium- N/A Dense residential
medium medium participation land use preferrred
on part of
Simplified homeowners
sewers is necessary

Low to Medium Low to Medium Low to Medium – high Medium Medium to Medium Must have septage
medium to high medium medium groundwater or to high high management
bedrock can limit program and
Selecting wastewater technologies

depth of tank frequent cleaning

Solids-free excavation of tanks
sewers

Low to Low to Low to Medium Any Medium to high High High High Electricity needed
medium medium medium for pumping

Pressure sewers
113
 114

Table 5.5 Primary treatment technology comparison guide, based on appropriate levels for the various key parameters (‘any’ is any level of the parameter is accepted, and ‘N/A’ means the
parameter is not applicable for the technology).

Technology Flow Flow Flow Land Site Slope Need for Good, Cost O&M Treatment Other
Rate Strength Variability Needs Tolerated Deep Soils effectiveness concerns
Tolerated
Low Low to medium – Medium Low Medium Medium – high Medium Low Low Odor if not
usually for to high groundwater or properly
residential bedrock can limit vented
source(s) depth of tank
Septic tank excavation

Medium Medium – for Medium Low to Medium to Medium – high Medium Low Low to Odor if not
residential and/ medium high groundwater or medium properly
or commercial bedrock can limit vented
Anaerobic source(s) depth of tank
Baffled Reactor excavation

Low to High – animal Low Medium Low to Depends on Medium High Medium Odor; gas
medium manure, food medium type – medium to high production
waste best for domes and monitoring and
floating drums, safety; residual
low for tubular biogas and
units biosolid usage

Anaerobic
Biodigester

High High – for High High Low High – depth Low – Low Medium Odor;
standard strong range of 2–5 m assuming mosquitos;
influent, rather is often limited by cheap maintaining
than animal or groundwater or land proper
Anaerobic other waste bedrock distance from
Lagoon population
centers
How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries
Table 5.6 Secondary treatment technology comparison guide, based on appropriate levels for the various key parameters (‘any’ is any level of the parameter is accepted, and ‘N/A’ means the parameter is not
applicable for the technology).

Technology Flow Flow Flow Land Site Slope Need for Good, Deep Cost O&M Treatment Other
Rate Strength Variability Needs Tolerated Soils effectiveness concerns
Tolerated
Low Low Any Medium Low to Medium – clay soils are Low Low Medium to Improper soils
to high medium not ideal, and increase high evaluation can lead to
land needs failure or aquifer
contamination
Non-mechanical soil
dispersal systems

Low Low Any Medium Low Medium – clay soils Low to Medium High Electricity needed for
may be limiting; shallow medium pumping
Mechanical soil soils are OK
dispersal systems
(mounds)

Low to Low to Any Medium Low to Medium – clay soils Low to Low to medium – High Lack of
medium medium to high medium may be limiting; shallow medium unclogging of pipe often locally-available
soils are OK necessary materials may be
limiting factor

Mechanical soil
dispersal systems
(drip irrigation)
inlet pipe and gravel for effluent outlet
wastewater distribution (height variable)

wetland plants (macrophytes)

wet well and cover

Low to Low to Any High Low Medium – usually Medium Low Low to Opportunity to merge
inlet

slope 1%
outlet
medium medium requires excavation to medium wastewater treatment
liner rhizome network small gravel

1 m depth; clay soils with habitat creation

Constructed may not require liner
wetlands
(horizontal)
Selecting wastewater technologies

Medium Medium Any High Low High – generally must Medium Low – O&M still Low to Odor; mosquitos
to high to high excavate to 2–3 m required to minimize medium
depth nuisance issues

Facultative lagoon

Low to Low to Any Low N/A N/A Medium Medium – regular Medium to Requires locally-
medium medium replacement of media high available media, and
warm climate; sludge
production
Media filter

High Medium Medium Low N/A N/A High High – requires skilled High Noise; electricity
to high construction and O&M demand; sludge
staff production
Aerobic system
115
 116

Table 5.7 Tertiary treatment technology comparison guide, based on appropriate levels for the various key parameters (‘any’ is any level of the parameter is accepted, and ‘N/A’ means the parameter is
not applicable for the technology).

Technology Flow Flow Flow Land Site Slope Need for Cost O&M Treatment Other
Rate Strength Variability Needs Tolerated Good, Deep effectiveness concerns
Tolerated Soils
Low to Medium to Low Low Any Low Medium – media Medium High Effective secondary
medium high - ideal may be treatment required
for strong expensive prior to tertiary
secondary filtration
effluent
Sand filtration

Any Low Any High Low Medium Medium – like Low to Low algae production;
with other medium mosquitos
lagoons and
wetlands,
depends
Maturation pond
on excavation
costs

Any Low – often Low to Low Any N/A Medium – Medium Medium Electricity needed
requires medium device and for dosing; safety in
tertiary chemical solution handling
filtration may be costly
beforehand

Chlorination
How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries
 Selecting wastewater technologies 117

5.2.1 Additional Considerations for Technology Selection

The key to effective wastewater pretreatment is O&M, with grease traps being a good example. The under-the-sink grease trap
is a low-cost system that will work well if properly maintained. The outdoor grease trap is much easier to maintain, but costs
more to pump periodically, whereas the high-efficiency grease interceptor is more expensive, but produces a usable byproduct.
Carefully planning the routes of sewers to minimize slope variability helps keep costs down, while failure can be avoided
by ensuring that pipes do not leak and are properly protected with bedding material under the pipe and enough soil cover above
the pipe. Outside of proper installation, user education and preventative O&M are keys to good sewer operation, while for
tank-using sewers, proper pre-treatment (locking access ports to keep out large solids and trash) and comprehensive
septage management must also be implemented.
When all of these conditions are met, innovative sewerage methods like solids-free, simplified and pressure sewer systems
can be successfully applied in developing country settings. As one example, Panglao Island, a resort community in The
Philippines, utilizes pump systems for each of its beachside hotels to remove the sewage from the waterfront and pump it
up to a central location for treatment. Also, simplified sewerage has been used with great success in Brazil and other
locations for communities of more than 20,000 people.
Primary treatment systems remove the heavy solids in wastewater through settling, and the lighter fats, oil and grease
through flotation. Septic tanks can work well when properly sized and maintained. ABRs are more efficient than septic
tanks but still require secondary treatment. Anaerobic digestion for biogas (methane) production is viable if the waste
contains a high percentage of volatile solids, as with fresh animal manure. Such waste may be mixed with properly
pre-treated residential wastewater, crop waste or food waste to improve methane production. Use skilled engineering to
best design systems even when using the toolkit in Section 4.5.3. Anaerobic sewage lagoons are recommended provided
they can be located well away from population centers. Properly designed systems will provide a moderate degree of
wastewater treatment, often to secondary standards, although seasonal variability might impact on effluent quality.
Facultative or aerobic ponds, or constructed wetlands, are often installed after these lagoons.
Selecting appropriate secondary treatment technologies is a function of:
• the amount of land available for the system (F:L ratio);
• the adequacy of the soils for soils-based dispersal;
• the proximity of the project site to population centers;
• the skill level of the workforce that will perform system O&M; and
• the funds available for installation, O&M and eventual replacement.
Beyond these factors, a careful assessment of the social, financial and governance aspects of the community or project
that will be served by the system is required. For larger projects, governance (the ability of the local government or
utility district to charge and collect fees, and levy fines and penalties for non-compliance) has a significant impact on
DWMS technology selection. If funds will be limited to system O&M once it is built, this becomes a key driver in the
decision-making process. Carefully considering all of these factors, and doing so using an open, transparent and
stakeholder-driven process, can lead to better technology choices and a greater willingness-to-pay for services over the
long-term.
Wastewater effluent that will be reused in buildings for toilet flushing, discharged into water bodies, or recycled for use
as crop irrigation water usually needs to receive tertiary treatment, which is filtration and disinfection. The filtration step,
critical for effective pathogen removal, is reliably done through sand filtration. While this technology has not been
presented at length in this manual, there is a lot of good information easily accessible from the references section of
Chapter 4.
Sand filtration removes most of the remaining suspended solids in the secondary effluent discharge. This is important as
suspended solids can shield pathogens from the effects of chlorine or UV radiation. Once influent is filtered, low levels of
chlorine or UV light can dramatically reduce the number of pathogens in the wastewater.
If land is available, consider using maturation ponds for pathogen control. If land is limited, chlorine may be the only other
practical disinfection option. Carefully consider the benefits and detriments of both liquid and solid chlorine, their safety
concerns, and long-term costs and product availability prior to making a technology selection.

5.3 CONCLUSION AND LOOKING FORWARD

This manual presents the step-by-step procedures for characterizing wastewater sources, evaluating sites where wastewater
will be managed, and using the data collected and DWMS technology parameters to help inform DWMS
118 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

technology-selection decisions. The guidance has been presented from the standpoint of the individual project, such as for a
school, hospital or housing block. As more and more individual projects are developed in a given community, and the concepts
of DWMS takes hold, cities and municipalities will begin to promote DWMS as a means for affecting sanitation improvements
on a large scale. Local governments can do a lot to achieve this proactively through the following steps:

• Promote the benefits of improved sanitation by first highlighting the problem and then describing how DWMS can be
part of the solution. Utilize stakeholders, NGOs, and civil society groups to spread the word. As people begin to see the
benefits of improved sanitation and understand how it will positively impact their lives and communities, they will be
more willing to pay for services;
• Develop policies and approve local ordinances on sanitation that require proper wastewater management, especially for
new construction, and for wastewater sources that are deemed to be imminent health hazards;
• Train staff on DWMS technology types and the step-by-step methods described in this manual. There are many free
resources that can be used to begin the process of training staff. Work with local universities whenever possible.
Utilize twinning and job-sharing with municipalities that are further ahead in the process as one way of building
local capacity;
• Link the requirements for proper DWMS with issuance of building permits. Train building inspectors on the procedures
for inspecting septic tanks and other DWMS technologies;
• Develop a ‘one-stop-shop’ style of permit acceptance and review, making it as easy as possible for citizens to comply.
Offer technical assistance as necessary;
• Promote good construction practices for septic tanks and other DWMS technologies through workshops, seminars and
hands on training exercises; and
• Ask for help. After many years of trying, the development community has come to realize that development works best
when it is demand-driven, rather than when it is forced upon a community. Therefore, development groups are eager to
assist those that come to them for help (demanding services). Use the power of the Internet to reach out to development
groups, many of which are listed in the appendices of this manual’s chapters.
The authors wish to thank you for your interest in this topic and look forward to your email comments.

REFERENCE
von Sperling M. (2013). Wastewater Characteristics, Treatment and Disposal: Volume One, Biological Wastewater Treatment Series. http://
www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Articles/DevelopingCountriesTitlesfromIWAPublishingFreetoDownload/Wastwater.
pdf (accessed 29 November 2013).
Appendices
Practical application of soils evaluation data

Understanding the nature of soils on a given site is critical for proper implementation of DWMS, not only for basing technology
decisions, but also for ensuring proper installation. Chapter 3 describes basic procedures for how service providers can conduct
proper soils evaluations. The following pages provide supplementary information and illustrate how all findings can be
organized in a standard format for the purposes of recording and interpreting the data. The appendices are given in the
following order:

• Appendix I provides additional information and definitions of various soils properties and procedures used within soils
evaluation, as well as a standard test hole soils evaluation log form, along with tables for adjusting the Long Term
Acceptance Rate (LTAR) based on specific soils conditions that are identified, with the ultimate goal of determining
the LTAR for the soils on a site;
• Appendix II provides an example LTAR calculation based on a hypothetical site, allowing readers to see how soils data is
actually reported and used to determine the ultimate LTAR.

Many researchers have contributed to the practice of soils evaluations for DWMS. The authors would like to recognize the
following individuals and organizations that have significantly contributed to this body of soils science and translated it
into a practical approach that can be used anywhere to improve the long-term function of soils-based DWMS components:
David Lindbo
North Carolina State University,
Soil Science Department, P.O. Box 762,
Raleigh, NC 27695-7619 ([email protected])
Randy Miles
University of Missouri,
302 Anheuser-Busch Building,
Columbia, MO 65211
DeAnn Presley
Kansas State University,
2014 Throckmorton Plant Science Center,
Manhattan, KS 66506-5504
Special thanks to The Soil Science Society of America, www.soils.org for permission to reprint their resources, as well as
David Lindbo for several images and tables, cited as (Lindbo, year produced). The main resources used here, referred to as
(Lindbo et al., 2008) and (Lindbo, 2009) have the following citations:

Lindbo D., Miles R. and Pressley D. (2008) Soil Profile Descriptions. In: Soil Science: Step-by-Step Field Analysis. S. Logsdon, D. Clay,
D. Moore and T. Tsegaye Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, U.S., 11–34.
Lindbo D. (2009) Chapter 4: Soil and Site Concepts for Installers. Installation of Wastewater Treatment Systems. Consortium of Institutes for
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (CIDWT), Iowa State University, Midwest Plan Service. Ames, IA. pp. 43–62.
Appendix I
More on soils evaluation

A1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE SOILS EVALUATION PROCESS

The soils evaluation procedures presented in Section 3.3 introduce the concept of using simple tests that can be performed in the
field to learn about key aspects of the soils. The depth and thickness of the soils horizons and the presence of groundwater or
bedrock should be determined during all DWMS projects, as they may have an impact upon the installation of tanks, trenches
and basins. The other features such as soil texture, structure, consistence, as well as slope description and landscape position
also determine how well the soils will perform for both dispersal and treatment. Each of these factors is presented in the
following pages that provide a step-by-step procedure for evaluating the soils for on-site effluent dispersal.
While the main goal of these exercises is to determine the ultimate Long Term Acceptance Rate (LTAR) of each soils
horizon of significance at a particular site, it is interesting to note that some of these parameters also may have a bearing on
the system installation. As one example, the degree of soil ‘stickiness’, one of the features of the soils evaluation procedure
presented below, can have a profound impact on the installation of leach trenches. For soils that are moderate to very
sticky, installation should be limited to the driest time of the year.
Before beginning the discussion on determining the LTAR, a note on the units used in these appendices is in order. Much of
the work on and research into soil science has been conducted in the United States. Therefore, for convention, the units of
measure are presented in ‘English’ measurements. A simple conversion formula for LTAR units in the U.S., in gallons per
day per square foot (gpd/sf), is provided below:

To convert to metric: gpd/sf × 40.7 = liters/day/square meter

This is an expression of how much volume (gallons) can be applied to an area of soil (square foot) each day. Area in this case
is described as the infiltrative surface, or the area where the leaching structure meets the natural soil. For a leach trench, it is the
side wall and bottom, although in certain areas and within this manual, the bottom is not counted to make design more
conservative. Remember that for leach trenches, there are 2 sidewalls, and the area of each measured from below the
distribution pipe is considered to be the infiltrative surface. For leach beds, the infiltrative surface is the bottom of the bed.
For drip irrigation fields, the infiltrative surface is the entire area of the field.
The following tables (adapted from: D. Lindbo, personal communication, July 8, 2013) are utilized in the step-by-step
process of determining LTAR, and will be referred to in the following pages based on how they give LTAR adjustment
values for various soil property conditions. The tables are grouped here for convenience. Each is described in detail in the
text sections that follow.
122 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Table A1.1 Soil texture.

USDA Texture Group/Range Mid-point LTAR

Adjustment
Sand (S) I 1.2–0.8 1 na
Loamy sand (LS) na
Sandy loam (SL) II 0.8–0.6 0.7 na
Loam (L) na
Silty loam (SiL) III 0.6–0.3 0.45 −0.05
Silt (Si) −0.1
Sandy clay loam (SCL) na
Clay loam (CL) na
Silty clay loam (SiCL) −0.05
Sandy clay (SC) IV 0.4–0.1 0.25 na
Clay (C) na
Silty clay (SiC) −0.05

Table A1.2 Other texture considerations and their adjustments.

Mica LTAR % Coarse LTAR

Adjustment Fragments Adjustment
Paramicaeous −0.05 0–15 na
Micaeous −0.1 15–35 −0.05
35–60 −0.1
60+ UNS

Table A1.3 Soil structure – grade, size and type.

Grade LTAR Size LTAR Type LTAR

Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment
0 – SG – Single na vf – Very fine 0.05 Gr – Granular 0.05
grain
0 – M – Massive UNS f – Fine 0.05 SBK – Subangular Na
blocky
0 – RCF – Rock −0.05 m – Medium na ABK – Angular blocky −0.05
controlled fabric
1 – weak −0.05 c – Coarse (to 1") −0.05 W – Wedge UNS
2 – moderate Na vc – Very coarse UNS PR – Prismatic UNS
3 – strong 0.05 PL – Platy UNS

Table A1.4 Soil consistence and mineralogy (see footnote).

Moist LTAR Wet – LTAR Wet – LTAR

Adjustment Stickiness Adjustment Plasticity Adjustment
Loose na NS 0.05 NP 0.05
vFr – Very friable 0.05 SS na SP na
Fr – Friable na MS −0.05 MP −0.05
Fi – Firm −0.05 VS UNS VP UNS
vFi – Very firm UNS
H – Hard UNS
Make only 1 LTAR adjustment based on consistence tests, use most restrictive
 Practical application of soils evaluation data 123

Table A1.5 Soil depth to unsuitable conditions.

Depth beneath infiltrative surface Depth beneath infiltrative surface in LTAR

in Group II–IV textures Group I texture adjustment
,12′′ ,18′′ UNS
12–18′′ 18–24′′ −0.05
18 to 24′′ 24 to 30′′ na
.24′′ .30′′ 0.05

Table A1.6 Landscape (slope) position.

Slope position LTAR Adjustment

Summit or ridge 0.05
Shoulder 0.05
Back or side slope (upper) na
Back or side slope (lower) −0.05
Foot slope −0.05
Toe slope −0.1
Channel or Drainage way UNS
Depression UNS
Floodplain −0.1

Table A1.7 Slope description.

Slope description LTAR Adjustment

VV–Convex, convex 0.05
LV–Linear, convex 0.05
VL–Convex, linear na
LL–Linear, linear na
CV–Concave, convex −0.05
LC–Linear, concave −0.05
VC–Convex, concave −0.1
CL–Concave, linear −0.1
CC–Concave, concave −0.15

Table A1.8 Slope correction, requiring addition of soil above down-slope trench wall bottom for
trenches perpendicular to hill slope, of up to 22 inches depth based on slope and trench width.

% Trench width (inches) % Trench width (inches)

Slope Slope
36 30 24 18 12 6 36 30 24 18 12 6
5 2 2 1 1 1 0 30 11 9 7 5 4 2
6 2 2 1 1 1 0 31 11 9 7 6 4 2
7 3 2 2 1 1 0 32 12 10 8 6 4 2
8 3 2 2 1 1 0 33 12 10 8 6 4 2
9 3 3 2 2 1 1 34 12 10 8 6 4 2
10 4 3 2 2 1 1 35 13 11 8 6 4 2
11 4 3 3 2 1 1 36 13 11 9 6 4 2

(Continued)
124 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Table A1.8 Slope correction, requiring addition of soil above down-slope trench wall bottom for
trenches perpendicular to hill slope, of up to 22 inches depth based on slope and trench width
(Continued).
% Trench width (inches) % Trench width (inches)
Slope Slope
36 30 24 18 12 6 36 30 24 18 12 6
12 4 4 3 2 1 1 37 13 11 9 7 4 2
13 5 4 3 2 2 1 38 14 11 9 7 5 2
14 5 4 3 3 2 1 39 14 12 9 7 5 2
15 5 5 4 3 2 1 40 14 12 10 7 5 2
16 6 5 4 3 2 1 41 15 12 10 7 5 2
17 6 5 4 3 2 1 42 15 13 10 8 5 3
18 6 5 4 3 2 1 43 15 13 10 8 5 3
19 7 6 5 3 2 1 44 16 13 11 8 5 3
20 7 6 5 4 2 1 45 16 14 11 8 5 3
21 8 6 5 4 3 1 46 17 14 11 8 6 3
22 8 7 5 4 3 1 47 17 14 11 8 6 3
23 8 7 6 4 3 1 48 17 14 12 9 6 3
24 9 7 6 4 3 1 49 18 15 12 9 6 3
25 9 8 6 5 3 2 50 18 15 12 9 6 3
26 9 8 6 5 3 2 51 18 15 12 9 6 3
27 10 8 6 5 3 2 52 19 16 12 9 6 3
28 10 8 7 5 3 2 53 19 16 13 10 6 3
29 10 9 7 5 3 2 54 19 16 13 10 6 3
30 11 9 7 5 4 2 55 20 17 13 10 7 3
56 20 17 13 10 7 3
57 21 17 14 10 7 3
A = W × (S/100) 58 21 17 14 10 7 3
59 21 18 14 11 7 4
60 22 18 14 11 7 4

A1.2 SOILS EVALUATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A1.2.1 Soil Texture and Structure
The procedures for conducting soil texture analysis were covered thoroughly in Section 3.3.3.2. The next step is to determine
the soil structure, which is defined as soil peds’ type, size, and grade. Ped type is very easy to discern, simply by comparing the
ped with Figure A1.1. The primary six categories (used for planning dispersal systems) are granular, subgranular blocky,
angular block, wedge, prismatic and platy. The other categories indicate poor soils (horizons) that should not be used
for dispersal.
Understanding ped type informs the designation of ped size, which requires knowing the ped type (class) and then
measuring its thickness or diameter (in general, its smallest dimension). The ped type determines which column of
Table A1.9 must be scanned, while that measurement (as designated by the column headers for the grouped ped classes)
determines which row should be selected. Each row, when followed to the left, reveals the proper size classification of the
ped. It is important to know what to measure for each class type (thickness or diameter) and to keep in mind that having
very coarse (or thicker) size peds in a horizon may make it unsuitable for dispersal systems.
Ped grade can be broken down into four groups as follows:
• Structureless: Group 0: no distinct peds can be viewed in the horizon or a hand sample;
• Weak: Group 1: the peds can barely be seen as distinct in the horizon or hand sample;
• Moderate: Group 2: the peds are clearly seen when viewed in the horizon and hand sample; and
• Strong: Group 3: the peds are very distinct-looking and separate easily from each other when moved.
Given how each of the three components of soil structure influences the flow of effluent through soil, their consideration is
required in determining the ultimate LTAR. Refer to Table A1.3 for the appropriate adjustment factors related to soil structure.
 Practical application of soils evaluation data 125

Figure A1.1 Common soil structure ped types (Lindbo et al., 2008).

Table A1.9 Ped size classification based on ped type and dimensions (adapted from Lindbo et al., 2008).

Class Granule or plate Column, prism, or Angular or subangular

thickness size** wedge diameter size** blocky size**
Very fine or very thin* ,1 ,10 ,5
Fine or thin* 1 to ,2 10 to ,20 5 to ,10
Medium 2 to ,5 20 to ,50 10 to ,20
Coarse or thick 5 to ,10 50 to ,100 20 to ,50
Very coarse or very thick 10+ 100 to ,500 50+
Extremely coarse – 500+ –
*Thin is only used for plates
**Size is for the smallest dimension in mm.

A1.2.2 Soil Consistence

Consistence is judged using these three major methods given below, which all factor into the LTAR calculation:
• Resistance to breaking: This labels the ped as having a moisture class (Table A1.10) based on how much force the
(moist) ped can handle when being compressed between the thumb and index finger before it ruptures. To test this,
take a ped block with edge of around 3 cm (or plate ped around 1 cm long and 0.5 cm thick) and push it between
those fingers for one second. Start with very little force, and increase that each time until the ped breaks. When it
does, the appropriate moisture class, of which there are five ranging between loose and very firm (which is
unsuitable for dispersal), can be judged based on the table.

Table A1.10 Classifying moisture level based on rupture resistance (adapted

from Lindbo et al., 2008).

Moisture Class Operation

Loose Specimen not obtainable
Very friable Very slight force between fingers
Friable Slight force between fingers
Firm Moderate force between fingers
Very firm Strong force between fingers
126 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

• Stickiness: This refers to how much the ped sticks to other things. It is tested by crushing peds in one’s hand and pushing
the soil through the thumb and index finger while pouring water on the soil until it sticks as much as it possibly can to the
fingers. Run this test a few times with different water-pouring levels to find out which moisture level gives the maximum
adherence for the sample. The overall stickiness is judged at that moisture level, and classified at four levels between
non-sticky (NS) and very sticky (VS, which is unsuitable for dispersal). This classification, done according to
Table A1.11, is based on how much soil sticks to the fingers after the pressure is released.

Table A1.11 Stickiness classification system (adapted from Lindbo et al., 2008).

Class Stickiness Criteria

Non-sticky Little or no soil adheres to fingers after release of pressure
Slightly sticky Soil adheres to both fingers after release of pressure with little stretching on
separation of fingers
Moderately Soil adheres to both fingers after release of pressure with some stretching on
sticky separation of fingers
Very sticky Soil adheres firmly to both fingers after release of pressure with much
stretching on separation of fingers

• Plasticity: This is how much soil can be twisted and turned as one piece until it breaks. Take soil at the same moisture
level as was used for the stickiness test, and roll it between the hands into as long and thin of a cylinder as possible. The
diameter and strength of the roll can be used to classify the soil sample into four categories of plasticity, ranging from
non-plastic (NP) to very plastic (VP, unsuitable for dispersal), as shown in Table A1.12.

Table A1.12 Plasticity classification system (adapted from Lindbo et al., 2008).

Class Plasticity Criteria

Non-plastic Will not form a 6 mm diameter roll, or if formed, cannot support itself if held on end
Slightly plastic 6 mm-diameter roll supports itself; 4 mm-diameter roll does not
Moderately plastic 4 mm-diameter roll supports itself; 2 mm-diameter roll does not
Very Plastic 2 mm-diameter roll supports itself

A1.2.3 Slope Description and Landscape Position

These interrelated aspects influence a site’s suitability for installing DWMS by affecting the nature of surface water flow
towards or away from the DWMS site. While the principles and terminology related to slope description and landscape
position are more generally described in Section 3.3.5.3, they are presented in greater depth here so the reader can see how
both aspects of the site affect the LTAR. Slope description relies on identifying both the downhill and lateral paths of the
site’s terrain as linear, concave or convex. Concave means that the site is located in an area similar to the bottom of a bowl,
while the opposite shape (on top of an upside down bowl) is called convex. Within LTAR estimation, these terms are used
to describe the nine slope type horizontal and vertical combinations (the first letter in each two letter classification referring
to the downhill slope, and the second one referring to the lateral slope) as indicated in Figure A1.2.
The more concave the slope is, the lower the LTAR should be, because that implies a greater tendency for pooling of water
within the site, which lowers a site’s suitability for DWMS. This explains why generally speaking viewing from the top left to
the bottom right of Figure A1.2, the LTAR adjustments become more negative (conservative). As with all of the sensorial soils
tests or site topography-based observations described in this Appendix and in Section 3.3, the various classification systems
and their associated LTAR adjustments (for slope description, in Table A1.7) are fully described later in the Appendix within
the context of a full soils and site-based LTAR calculation case study.
While slope conditions may be thought of as more local, occurring at the specific site of the DWMS, landscape (slope)
position may be thought of as more general, providing an assessment of the site relative to the greater environment as
described in Section 3.3.5.3. Figure A1.3 is used in conjunction with Table A1.6 to determine the proper LTAR adjustment
 Practical application of soils evaluation data 127

factor based on landscape position. During the site investigation, the service provider should determine the landscape
position of the location chosen for the evaluation. Then he or she can simply match the position name with those provided
for in Table A1.6.

Figure A1.2 Slope description chart (Lindbo, 2009).

Figure A1.3 Landscape position slope names (Lindbo, 2009).

The slope names that link Figure A1.3 and Table A1.6 are:

Su – Summit or ridge Bs – Back or side (lower) Channel or drainage way

Sh – Shoulder Fs – Foot slope Depression
Bs – Back or side (upper) Ts – Toe Slope Floodplain

A1.3 STEPS FOR DETERMINING LTAR

(1) Use soil texture analysis to obtain the baseline LTAR value, which is the midpoint value in Table A1.1 based on
grouping within soil groups I-IV, and add in any sub-texture adjustments within the relevant soil group.
(2) Make any other texture adjustments from Table A1.2.
(3) Identify the soil structure and apply those component adjustment factors as appropriate from Table A1.3.
(4) Determine the soil consistence and apply the most negative adjustment factor from those tests as found in Table A1.4.
(5) Determine any soil depth adjustment(s) as needed and apply the factor(s) from Table A1.5.
(6) Evaluate the landscape position and slope description and make any adjustments from Tables A1.6 and A1.7
as needed.
128 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

The sum of the baseline LTAR and adjustments gives the final LTAR. Be sure also correct the downslope trench edge depth
(make it more shallow) for the slope if necessary using the slope correction factors (Table A1.8). The soils evaluation can then
be completed by looking at landscape cover (vegetation, buildings, etc.) and microclimate conditions that may pose any
additional challenges or opportunities for effluent dispersal at this site. Throughout the process, use the test hole soils
evaluation log form (Figure A1.4) to record your results. Appendix II illustrates how each of these adjustments described
above are made for a hypothetical site.

Figure A1.4 Test hole soils evaluation log form.

Appendix II
Example soils evaluation data interpretation and
LTAR calculation

Using the data filled out in the sample test hole soils evaluation form (Figure A2.1) given below, the subsequent step-by-step
process demonstrates how soils (and site) conditions can determine LTAR. It can also determine upslope and downslope trench
wall depths, which are important because when the trenches run perpendicular to non-zero sloped-hills as is advised, their
downslope edge must be slightly raised to compensate for the overall hill slope effect. The key soils conditions are texture,
structure, and consistence, while the major site conditions are landscape position and slope description.

Landscape/slope position___Upper side slope, LL___Slope (%)___10___Shallowest limiting condition depth, inches (cm)
___ 36 (90)___Percentage of coarse fragments in restrictive horizon___10___

Depth, Texture Structure Consistence

Horizon inch (cm) (Group) (grade, size, type) (moist, stickiness, plasticity)

1 0-6 (0-15) Loam weak, medium, granular friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic
2 6-20 (15-50) Clay loam moderate, medium, friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic
subangular blocky
3 20-36 (50-90) Clay moderate, medium, friable, slightly sticky, moderately plastic
subangular blocky
4 36-45 (90-115) Clay loam moderate, coarse, friable, slightly plastic, moderately plastic
subangular blocky
5 45+ (115+) Sandy loam massive friable, slightly sticky, slightly plastic

Figure A2.1 Example simplified filled-in test hole soils evaluation log form.

Example Soils Evaluation Procedure

Step 1: Determining the depth for horizons and limiting condition. The test hole analysis revealed that there were five
horizons down to minimum advisable hole inspection depth of 1.2 m, with their depths measured and given in the proper
column. While inspecting the horizons, clusters of mottles were seen at 36 in (90 cm) depth, which served as the
shallowest limiting condition (SLC) and was marked as such in the form.
Step 2: Determining the texture of each horizon, and the most-restrictive horizon overall. Soil from each of the five
horizons was tested using sensorial soils evaluation, which gave texture groups as listed above. Looking within the
horizons, it was clear that horizon three, with clay was the most restrictive group, making horizon 3 the restrictive
horizon (RH) and the starting point for the LTAR calculation. As shown in Table A1.1 the LTAR base was identified as
0.25 gallons per day per square foot (to be converted to metric units in the end), with no adjustment for sub-texture
130 How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

within the clay group. Also, information about the relative amount of coarse fragments in that horizon was used to make an
additional LTAR adjustment, which in the end was not necessary, as shown in Table A1.2.
Step 3: Determining the structure of each horizon. The visual assessment and measuring processes were done as needed to
evaluate the main structural aspects – ped grade, size and type – for each horizon and logged on the form. These observations
were used for adjusting the LTAR by looking up (for the RH) each aspect’s listing in Table A1.3 and adding the appropriate
values to 0.25. The ped grade of moderate gave an adjustment of 0 (n/a); the medium size gave adjustment of 0; and the
subangular blocky ped type gave an adjustment of 0. All of these three adjustments, when added to the LTAR from the
previous step of 0.25, did not change that value.
It is important to note, however, that having three adjustment values of 0 is not guaranteed. Also, if any of the three aspects
had been rated with LTAR adjustment values of ‘UNS’, that the soil would be classified as unstable (unsuitable) for dispersal
(this is true for all soils with any parameters rated ‘UNS’ within the charts). In such cases, the RH should then be treated as
the SLC, and a new RH above that should be selected, based on texture as described before. If sufficient soils depth (at least
75 cm) for dispersal is not present above the bottom of the new SLC, then another site with a sufficiently deep SLC and no
unsuitable RH above that should be chosen.
Step 4: Determining the consistence of each horizon. The tests for resistance to breaking, stickiness, and plasticity were done
for moist soil from each horizon, with findings recorded in the proper column of the log form. The results for horizon 3 (the
RH) led to LTAR adjustments for those tests of 0 (friable), 0 (SS, or slightly sticky) and −0.05 (MP, moderately plastic) as
determined by looking at Table A1.4. Given that the lowest value of all three should be chosen as the overall consistence
LTAR adjustment, as described in that chart’s footnote, the value of −0.05 was added to 0.25 to get a revised LTAR of 0.20.
Step 5: Determining the soil depth between the bottom of the dispersal system and the SLC. Given the SLC depth of 36
inches (90 cm), the need for a soil buffer of 12 inches (30 cm) above that, and the fact that as mentioned earlier at least 18
inches of trench basin/soil cover must be above the trench bottom, this limited the trench bottom depth to a range of 18
inches to 24 inches (36 in minus 12 in). The 18 inches (45 cm) value was chosen in order to maximize the distance to
the SLC (18 inches), which still falls within the 12–18 inch range as specified in Table A1.5. This gave an LTAR
adjustment of −0.05 (for Group II–IV texture soils, which as shown in Table A1.1 are everything but sand and loamy
sand, which is Group I). This led to a revised LTAR of 0.15. However, if that distance to SLC could have been greater
than 18 inches – meaning SLC was below 90 cm depth – then as shown in Table A1.5, an ‘n/a’ or even +0.05 LTAR
adjustment might have been possible, which shows quantitatively how choosing better, deeper soil sites allows increased
dispersion rates.
Step 6: Determining the site’s landscape position and slope description. With the help of experienced surveyors, it was
found that the chosen dispersal site had an upper side slope landscape position and linear, linear (LL) overall slope.
Tables A1.6 and A1.7 were used to conclude that the two LTAR adjustment factors for those two findings were −0.05
and 0, which added to the LTAR gave a final LTAR of 0.10 g/d/ft2 (4.07 L/d/m2).
As for other impacts on soils dispersal design, if the site slope is greater than or equal to 5 percent (not ideal), the downslope
trench downslope wall bottom depth needs to be raised with additional soil covering based on an adjustment value as shown in
Table A1.8. In this case, the slope of 10 percent implies an adjustment of 4 in, equal to 8 cm (all based on an implied maximum
acceptable trench width of 36 inches, or 90 cm).
 How to Design Wastewater Systems for
How to Design

How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries

Local Conditions in Developing Countries
David M Robbins and Grant C. Ligon
This is a practical handbook providing a step-by-step approach to the techniques used for Wastewater Systems
for Local Conditions in
characterizing wastewater sources and investigating sites where collection, treatment
and reuse/disposal technologies will be installed. It is intended to help enable local
implementation of on-site and decentralized wastewater management system (DWMS)
for wide scale use in development settings.

Developing Countries
How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries helps
local service providers and regulatory officials make informed decisions through the
use of tools, checklists and case studies. It includes a link to a web based community of
on-site and decentralized wastewater professionals, which contains related tools and
case studies. This handbook serves as a reference for training classes, certification
programs, and higher education programs in civil and sanitary engineering.

There is an increasing interest on the part of local government officials and private
sector service providers to implement wastewater treatment systems to solve sanitation
problems. The model presented in this handbook promotes activities that first generate
data related to source and site conditions that represent critical inputs, and then applies David M Robbins and Grant C. Ligon
this information to the technology selection process. Matching the most appropriate
technologies to the specific needs of the wastewater project is the key that leads to long
term sustainability.

How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries is

an invaluable resource for public sector decision makers and private sector service
providers in developing countries. It is also a useful text for students at engineering
colleges in developing countries interested in taking a class that teaches the methods of

David M Robbins and Grant C. Ligon

decentralized wastewater management system (DWMS) development.

iwapublishing.com
@IWAPublishing
ISBN: 9781780404769 (Paperback)
ISBN: 9781780404776 (eBook)

How to Design Wastewater Systems for Local Conditions in Developing Countries_280x215_layout_final.indd 1 14/02/2014 16:36