KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
KUMASI, GHANA
Faecal Sludge Management in the Ho Municipality, Ghana
BY
Antoinette Ama Agboado (BSc. Mechanical Engineering)
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
JUNE, 2015
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this thesis is my own work towards the Master of Science (MSc) and that to the best of my knowledge contains no materials previously published by another person nor material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree of the University, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Miss Antoinette Ama Agboado …………………… …………………..
(PG 9727213) Signature Date
Certified by:
Dr. Helen M.K. Essandoh ….…………… … …………………..
(Supervisor) Signature Date
Certified By:
Prof. Y.A Tuffour …………………… …………………...
(Head of Department) Signature Date
ii
ABSTRACT
This study investigated the faecal sludge management practices in five communities
(Matse, Ziavi Dzogbe, Hodzo Aviepe, Sokode Gborgame and Ho Township) in the
Ho municipality and proposes sustainable solutions for efficient faecal sludge management. Semi-structured interviews, field observations and review of secondary data were used to assess the management practices in these communities. Samples of faecal sludge generated from household and public toilets (septic tanks and VIP) were analyzed for physico-chemical parameters. Majority of the respondents in the study communities were found to depend on public toilets. 8.5% - 15% of the respondents lack basic sanitation facilities and therefore were engaged in open defaecation. Even though there are two faecal sludge disposal sites for the municipality, the sludge is dumped untreated into the environment. Inadequate funding also made faecal sludge management in the municipality inefficient. Results from the laboratory revealed that the mean total solid (TS) concentrations were
75693 ± 34600 mg/L, 26803 ± 14647 mg/L and 39164.5 ± 28831.5 mg/L for public toilet, septic tank and VIP respectively and this is high compared to what is in literature. 30 unplanted drying beds each of size 25 m2 x 30 m2 are proposed for treatment of the sludge and potential nutrients present harnessed for use as fertilizer by farmers. Households, governmental departments, private entrepreneurs, treatment plant operator, traditional leaders, NGOs, farmers and banks were identified as stakeholders needed to sustain the faecal sludge management system, each with specified roles and responsibilities assigned. A financial model which will allow easy flow of fees to be paid within the customer, service provider and public authority interface was proposed to sustain the faecal sludge management system.
iii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to Makafui and Woelinam
iv
TABLE OF CONTENT
CERTIFICATION ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... iii DEDICATION ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix LIST OF PLATES ...... x LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... xiii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 4 1.3 Objective ...... 4 1.4 Justification ...... 5 1.5 Scope ...... 6 1.6 Structure of Report ...... 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 7 2.1 Definition of Faecal Sludge ...... 7 2.2 Current Practices and Challenges of faecal Sludge Management ...... 7 2.3 Faecal Sludge Management Planning ...... 12 2.4 Faecal Sludge Management service chain ...... 13 2.4.1 Storage...... 13 2.4.2 Methods of Collection and transportation ...... 14 2.4.3 Treatment options...... 19 2.4.4 Selection of Treatment options ...... 25 2.4.5 Enduse/ Disposal ...... 27 2.5 Characterization of faecal sludge ...... 28 2.6 Quantification of faecal sludge ...... 31 2.7 Existing Faecal Sludge Treatment Schemes in Developing Countries ...... 32 2.8 Efforts towards Environmental Sanitation Development in Ghana ...... 34 CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 36 3.1 General Background of Study Area ...... 36 3.1.1 Location...... 36
v
3.1.2 Climate ...... 37 3.1.3 Relief and Drainage...... 38 3.1.4 Geology ...... 38 3.1.5 Social Characteristics ...... 38 3.1.6 Water and Sanitation ...... 39 3.2 Methodology ...... 42 3.2.1 Desk Study ...... 42 3.2.2 Field Observation ...... 42 3.2.3 Key informant interview ...... 43 3.2.4 Household Survey ...... 43 3.2.5 Sampling Methods ...... 44 3.2.6 Estimation of faecal sludge quantities...... 44 3.2.7 Selection of treatment option ...... 45 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 46 4.1 Existing Faecal Sludge Management Practices ...... 46 4.1.1 Defaecation Practices ...... 46 4.1.2 Household Toilets Facilities Used in Ho Municipal Area ...... 47 4.1.3 Desludging and Transportation of Faecal Sludge ...... 49 4.1.4 Treatment/Disposal Practices of faecal sludge ...... 50 4.1.5 Enabling Environment ...... 51 4.2 Challenges faced in Faecal Sludge Management in Ho Municipality ...... 52 4.3 Improving Faecal Sludge Management ...... 56 4.3.1 Collection and Transportation of Faecal Sludge ...... 56 4.3.2 Characteristics of Untreated Faecal Sludge, Ho Municipality ...... 57 4.3.3 Criteria for Selecting the Suitable Faecal Sludge Treatment Options . 60 4.3.4 Estimation of number of drying beds ...... 62 4.3.5 Site Selection ...... 64 4.4 Identification of Stakeholders in the Faecal Sludge Management ...... 65 4.5 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders ...... 67 4.5.1 Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development ...... 67 4.5.2 Regional Departments and offices ...... 68 4.5.3 Ho Municipal Assembly ...... 68 4.5.4 NGOs and Donors ...... 69
vi
4.5.5 Households ...... 69 4.5.6 Private Entrepreneur (cesspit emptier driver and mason) ...... 70 4.5.7 Treatment plant operator ...... 70 4.5.8 Banks ...... 71 4.5.9 Traditional Leaders ...... 71 4.5.10 Farmers ...... 71 4.6 Strategies for Cost Recovery ...... 72 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 73 5.1 Conclusions ...... 73 5.2 Recommendations ...... 74 REFERENCES ...... 75 APPENDICES ...... 81
vii
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Current FS Management Practices and Consequences ...... 10
Table 2.2. Comparison of manual emptying versus mechanical empting ...... 19
Table 2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of unplanted drying beds ...... 22
Table 2.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of waste stabilization ponds ...... 24
Table 2.5. Criteria for selecting treatment options for Nam Dinh, Vietnam...... 25
Table 2.6. Overview of design and performance of low cost treatment options...... 26
Table 2.7. Summary of potential resource recovery options from faecal sludge ...... 28
Table 2.8. Characteristics of faecal sludge compared with wastewater sludge ...... 30
Table 2.9. Sludge accumulation rates ...... 32
Table 2.10. Places where faecal sludge management is practiced ...... 33
Table 4.1. Challenges faced in faecal sludge management in Ho municipality ...... 55
Table 4.2. Characteristics of faecal sludge from on-site facilities ...... 59
Table 4.3. Evaluation criteria for five treatment options ...... 61
Table 4.4. Multi-criteria analysis performed for 5 selected technologies ...... 62
Table 4.5 Roles of stakeholders in the faecal sludge service chain ...... 66
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Map of study area ...... 37
Figure 4.1. Defaecation practices...... 47
Figure 4.2. Types of household toilet facilities ...... 48
Figure 4.3. Schematic diagram of the proposed treatment plant ...... 63
Figure 4.4. Proposed site location of treatment plant...... 65
Figure 4.5. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholder identified ...... 67
Figure 4.6. Financial model for the faecal sludge management ...... 72
ix
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 2.1. Faecal sludge management service chain: ...... 13
Plate 2.2. MAPET equipment in Congo: Tilley et al, 2014 ...... 16
Plate 2.3. A manual bucket emptying method: Tilley et al, 2014 ...... 17
Plate 2.4. Cesspit emptier removing faecal sludge from a septic tank ...... 18
Plate C.1. A defaulting tenant explaining to EHA ...... 83
Plate C.2. A soak away pit full and leaching into the environment ...... 83
Plate C.3. Children fetching water from a stream close to the scene above ...... 84
Plate C.4. Other solid wastes thrown into the stream ...... 84
Plate C.5. Cracks in a slab cover ...... 85
Plate C.6. Long hose to enable access to the on-site facility ...... 85
Plate C.7. Workers of the HMA desludging a pit ...... 86
Plate C.8. There is a hole connecting the two pits ...... 86
Plate C.9. Pits get full to the brim before they are desludge ...... 87
Plate C.10. Pits get full to the brim before they are desludge ...... 87
Plate C.11. Example of public pit latrine in Matse ...... 88
Plate C.12. VIP toilet in Hodzo Viepe ...... 88
Plate C.13. Example of Public WC toilet in Ziavi Dzogbe ...... 89
Plate C.14. Inside of the toilet structure in plate C.13...... 89
Plate C.15. A plan land use as a disposal site at Tsito ...... 90
Plate C.16. Disposal site at Sokode Ando ...... 90
Plate C.17. A truck discharging at the disposal site at Tsito ...... 91
Plate C.18. Solidified sludge in a septic tank ...... 91
Plate C.19. The old cesspit emptier belonging to HMA ...... 92
x
LIST OF ACRONYMS
FS Faecal Sludge
WC Water Closet
FSM Faecal Sludge Management
GSS Ghana Statistical Services
GNA Ghana News Agency
MDG Millennium Development Goal
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
MCA Multi Criteria Analysis
VIP Ventilated Improve Pit
DWD District Works Department
NGO Non Governmental Organization
RCC Regional Coordinating Council
EHA Environmental Health Officer
HMA Ho Municipal Assembly
CWSA Community Water and Sanitation Agency
GUMPP Ghana Urban Management Pilot Project
KVIP Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit
xi
MEHO Municipal Environmental Health Officer
MHDP Manual Hand Desludging Pump
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
MAPET Manual Pit Emptying Technology
MESSAP Municipal Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan
DESSAP District Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan
NESSAP National Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan
MLGRD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
xii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis could not have come to a successful completion without the variety of assistance and supports that were received. My first and foremost appreciation goes to my supervisor Dr (Mrs.) Helen M.K. Essandoh for the excellent and professional guidance offered throughout the research. I am indebted to the Bill and Melinda
Gates foundation and The Netherlands government for providing funding for my
Master of Science education through which I have gained a lot of knowledge. I recognize the hard work of the defence panel whose valuable comments and criticisms contributed to the success of this thesis, I say thank you.
Secondly my profound gratitude goes to Mr. Philip Dwamana Boateng, Acting
General Manager of Ghana Water Company Limited Ho, for using their water laboratory and competent staff for the laboratory analysis of the feacal sludge samples. I wish to thank the staff of the Environmental Department at the Ho
Municipal Assembly, especially Mr. Galley and Mr. Fiabu whose assistance helped me to obtain the necessary data for the thesis. Words cannot express my sincere thanks to Madam Peace Gbeblewu (Environmental Health Officer), for her hospitality and assistance, taking me to all the communities where I did my household interviews.
I say kudos to my entire course mates especially Collins Kwame Owusu (course pee) for being there for me. My appreciations go to my children for all the sacrifices that they have made for me. My immense thanks go to my family and loved ones whose moral support never ceased throughout the study but space and time will not allow me to mention, I say kudos to you all. Above all my sincere gratitude goes to God almighty whose protection and guidance has brought me this far.
xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The importance of sanitation is indisputable. It is a crucial stepping stone to better health. Sanitation offers us the opportunity to save the lives of 1.5 million children a year who would otherwise succumb to diarrhea diseases, and to protect the health of many more (UNICEF & WHO, 2008). A report by UNICEF & WHO (2014) indicated that sanitation needs of 2.7 billion people worldwide are served by onsite sanitation technologies, and this number is expected to grow to 5 billion by 2030.
Due to economic constraints and mainly on account of settlement structures, conventional sewerage systems are unlikely to spread as an option of choice in low and middle income countries. In these poor areas, on-site sanitation facilities such as unsewered public and private latrines, aqua privies and flush toilets connected to septic tanks, are used to provide for their sanitation needs. They are regarded as the best solution to reach the Millennium Development Goals in sanitation (that is ensuring environmental sustainability), which is aimed at reducing by half the number of people without any access to decent sanitation facilities by 2015 (UN,
2007).
On-site sanitation systems generate large amount of sludge which cannot be transported through sewer systems. When the containment structure becomes full of the faecal sludge generated, it needs regular desludging. Usually the untreated sludge ends up indiscriminately in the local environment (Koné & Strauss, 2004). The absence or insufficiency of adequate sludge management in many cities of developing countries, particularly so in low-income areas, continuously leads to serious health and environmental hazards (Ingallinella et al., 2002 and Klingel et al.,
1
2001). The effects of improper disposal of faecal sludge are many; they contribute to the pollution of groundwater, contamination of agricultural produce and spreading of diseases such as diarrhea, cholera and helminthiasis.
In developing countries, the state of environmental sanitation derives to a greater extent from inadequate number of toilet facilities as well as lack of waste disposal and treatment facilities (Cofie et al., 2006). In Ghana, more than 85% of faecal sludge generated every day is discharged into the environment without any effective treatment due to the fact that faecal sludge generated far exceeds the existing capacity of treatment facilities available (Drechsel, 2009 and Gyamfi, 2011).
In Ho Municipal area, all the faecal sludge generated is discharged into the environment due to the absence of treatment facilities in the area.
Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) includes the storage, collection, transport, treatment and safe end-use or disposal of faecal sludge generated from on-site technologies. As cited by Strande (2014), effective faecal sludge management requires transactions and interactions among different people and organizations from the public, private and civil society. It also needs a link between people at every step in the service chain (from the household level user, to collection and transport companies, operators of treatment plants, and the final end user of treated sludge).
Sewer systems and faecal sludge treatment plant are not the same but can be complementary, and frequently do exist side-by-side in low-income countries
(Ingallinella et al., 2002). A very successful example of this management model is in
Japan where the systems successfully co-exist in urban areas (Gaulke & Johkasou,
2006). There are many cities around the world in which on-site technologies have a wider coverage than sewer systems. For example, 65-100% of sanitation needs are
2 provided through on-site sanitation in urban areas in Sub-Saharan Africa (Strauss et al., 2000).
In Ghana, about 5% of the population is served with sewerage network, while up to 75% depend on on-site technologies for their sanitation needs. The remaining 20% use open defecation (Strauss et al., 2003 and Drechsel, 2009). In the
Ho Municipality 17.5 % of households have no toilet facility and therefore engage in open defecation or what is sometimes referred to as „free range‟. The remaining 82.5
% of the population are served by on-site sanitation. In the absence of in-house toilet facilities, the tendency across Ho Municipal Assembly is the increasing use of public toilet facilities and other shared facilities (GSS, 2014).
According to Strauss et al. (2003) faecal sludge management is an important aspect of sanitation, which must be included in the development of any sanitation plan. However it is usually neglected during the early part of the planning process.
Ideally, faecal sludge management should be considered and developed once the city or country deals or relies on the onsite sanitations system. The need for faecal sludge management is only realized when the negative effect resulting from improper faecal sludge disposal practices becomes more severe. In urban areas where open spaces are limited and population density is quite high, faecal sludge management should be mandatory to reduce the incidence and spreading of diseases. In addition, planning of faecal sludge management should be conducted to improve upon the work of an existing management system. This is possible with the identification of current problems and needs of the areas (Koottatep, 2014).
3
1.2 [Problem Statement
On-site sanitation installations will serve the growing populations in low and middle income countries including Ghana for decades to come. As a result, growing quantities of faecal sludge will have to be managed (collection and haulage, treatment, and reuse or disposal). In Ho Municipality, provision of on-site sanitation technology is the main solution to serve the sanitation needs of the growing population. Thousands of tonnes of faecal sludge are generated daily from these on- site facilities. When the pit is full, the sludge is disposed untreated and indiscriminately into the local environment since there are no treatment facilities in the municipality. Poor management of faecal sludge in the municipality poses a great threat to human health and the environment.
Children, in particular, are at the greatest risk of getting into contact with indiscriminately disposed excreta. The recent case of cholera outbreak in Ghana also affected Volta Region with 400 people infected and10 deaths. In the Ho municipal area, 4 people were reported to have been infected with the cholera disease (GNA,
2014). In addition, Ho Municipality has seen rapid population growth and urbanization in the recent years which has worsened the faecal sludge situation.
There is therefore the need to develop suitable faecal sludge management in the Ho
Municipality.
1.3 Objective
The main objective of the research is to develop an efficient faecal sludge management system for Ho Municipality.
The specific objectives are:
4
To assess the existing situation of household faecal sludge management
practices in Ho Municipality.
To characterize and quantify the faecal sludge and select a suitable treatment
option for the faecal sludge.
To examine roles and responsibilities of stakeholders for efficient faecal
sludge management.
1.4 Justification
This study is important because Ho municipality is currently without efficient faecal sludge management system. With faecal sludge management in place, the problem of indiscriminate disposal of faecal sludge from on-site systems into the environment would be eliminated. This will improve both human and environmental health.
As awareness of the potential challenges associated with faecal sludge management become apparent, this research would ensure that more attention is placed on ensuring effective formulation and enforcement of sanitation bye-laws.
This will eliminate the practice of discharging faecal sludge into the environment untreated. Stakeholders in the faecal sludge management will be involved in the planning and implementation of faecal sludge management services. The findings will help policy and decision makers of sanitation to plan for suitable faecal sludge management systems, which they can replicate in other areas of Ghana facing similar challenges.
5
1.5 Scope
The focus of this study is to investigate the current faecal sludge infrastructure and trends in the Ho municipality and propose a faecal sludge management system which can effectively cater for the sludge generated. This includes all relevant infrastructure components and services such as the on-site household-level installations, faecal sludge collection and haulage, treatment and disposal or reuse of the sludge. The study is also to propose a suitable treatment option to treat the sludge and find a possible reuse opportunity for the treated sludge. Finally the study will develop stakeholder analysis and propose a cost recovery mechanism for the efficient management of the system.
1.6 Structure of Report
The report on this study is divided into five (5) chapters. Chapter One (1), the introduction, contains the general introduction, problem statement, research objectives, justification, scope and the structure of the report. Chapter Two (2) covers the review of relevant literature to the study discussing the concepts and issues of faecal sludge management. Chapter Three (3) is centered on the profile of the study area and methodology. Chapter Four (4) focuses on the analysis and discussions of the data collected. Finally chapter Five (5) contains the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the study.
6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Definition of Faecal Sludge
Faecal sludge is described as sludge of variable consistency collected from on-site sanitation systems, such as latrines, non-sewered public toilets, septic tanks and aqua privies (Nkansah, 2009). Hemkendreis et al. (2014) also defined faecal sludge as the general term for the undigested or partially digested slurry or solid that results from the storage or treatment of blackwater or excreta. In actual fact, any solid or settled content that comes from pit latrines and septic tanks is referred to as faecal sludge
(SHW-Guide, 2015). Faecal Sludge refers to all liquid and semi-solid contents that accumulate in onsite-sanitation facilities. It can either be raw or partially digested depending on the type of on-site facility and its usage (Strande et al., 2014)
According to Koottatep (2014), faecal sludge consists of settleable solids and other non faecal matters with varying concentrations. The variability of faecal sludge differ widely from place to place and it is affected by the duration of storage, temperature, intrusion of groundwater or surface water in septic tanks or pits, performance of septic tanks, and tank emptying technology and pattern.
2.2 Current Practices and Challenges of Faecal Sludge Management
In many cities of developing countries including Ghana, the disposal of faecal matter is a critical issue. In Africa and Asia as well as for a greater proportion of the population in Latin America, on-site sanitation facilities are the predominant form of disposal of faecal sludge for the majority of the people (Strauss & Montangero,
2000). In areas where on-site sanitation dominate, there is the need to empty the
7 accumulated faecal sludge periodically and transport them to a treatment facility or disposal points of safety. However, the poor management of faecal sludge (Pandey
& Kaul, 2000), has resulted in the disposal of faecal sludge into the environment without treatment which is affecting the health of human beings and the environment (Ingallinella et al., 2002; Montangero et al., 2002; Parkinson & Tayler,
2003 and Strauss & Montangero, 2002).
There are many challenges affecting the faecal sludge management in developing countries. Careless handling of the faecal matter during desludging and disposal from the facilities pose serious health threats to the active workers in the desludging of the faecal sludge (Jindal et al., 2015). Due to unplanned settlement structures, collection and transport trucks do not get access to narrow lanes and paths leading to houses thus leaving manual desludging as the only option for the people
(Koné et al., 2006).
Usually, suitable treatment or final disposal sites are located at the outskirts of cities. Operators will have to spend a lot of time to transport the faecal matter over long distances through heavy traffic to the treatment or disposal sites. They therefore discharge their load at the shortest possible distance from the points of collection to save time and cost (Murungi & Van Dijk, 2014 and Strauss et al., 1997). In addition, the high cost of cesspit emptiers and their spare parts, makes maintenance of the vehicle not scheduled and it results in poor management of the emptying services
(Nkansah, 2009).
Faecal sludge is considered a good organic fertilizer and soil conditioner and therefore frequently used in agriculture (Cofie et al., 2010). The sludge which is most often not adequately treated and contains pathogenic organisms is dispersed on fields. As reported by Cofie et al. (2010) the farmers agreed that these pathogenic
8 organisms can infect the farmers working on the fields as they work on the contaminated soil usually not using any protective measures. However, they disagree that it causes food contamination. Consumers are equally at risk of getting infected if the crops are eaten raw and are not thoroughly washed or cooked (Drechsel, 2009).
In many developing countries, efforts towards decentralizing responsibilities have created vacuum in the sanitation infrastructure and service provision, especially faecal sludge management. Roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined, professional skills at municipal level are mostly missing and legal framework, including know-how at municipal level, are often lacking (Koné et al., 2006).
Drechsel (2009) indicated that to have a sustained improvement in faecal sludge management, awareness and political will must exist and be strengthened at various levels of government to promote sustained improvements in faecal sludge management. Table 2.1. presents the problems involved in dealing with faecal sludge management. All these problems can be avoided with proper faecal sludge management in place.
9
Table 2.1. Current FS Management Practices and Consequences
(Strauss & Montangero, 2002) FS management Causes component and Problems Consequences
aspect Emptying + Collection Limited or no accessibility to pits Overflowing pits At neighbourhood level, mainly Inappropriate emptying equipment Emptying frequency often very low Health hazards from openly dumped Manual, non-mechanised emptying Informal or emergency emptying of faecal sludgee and through use of Poor service management pits and indiscriminate disposal of contaminated water Users low affordability for pit emptying faecal sludge. Eye and nose sores. Lack of information (e.g. on how septic tanks Non-functionality of work) infrequently emptied septic tanks solids carry-over. Haulage Traffic congestion. Collectors dump faecal sludge in an Lack of suitable disposal or treatment sites at uncontrolled manner at the shortest short distance from the area of faecal sludge possible distance from where faecal collection. sludge was collected. Lack of urban planning . Lack of suitable disposal or treatment sites at short distance from the area of faecal sludge Collection. Lack of involvement of private sector service providers. Lack of suitable incentive and sanctions structure Collectors minimizing haulage distance and time
Treatment
10
Lack of proven and appropriate treatment Faecal sludge is used or dumped At district or municipal level, options untreated mainly: Where FS treatment exists: private collectors / Health hazards through use of entrepreneurs avoid the paying of treatment fees contaminated water sources Institutional / Non-availability of suitable treatment Economic Lack of political will to invest in treatment sites Lack of effective cost recovery Use or discharge of untreated FS Lack of urban planning Lack of information Reuse in Agriculture Agronomic / Farmers in want of cheap soil amendment + Soils amended and vegetables Potential health risks to institutional / financial fertilizer (in many countries, farmers are fertilised with untreated FS consumers /economic traditionally accustomed to the use of untreated or only marginally stored FS (nightsoil) Private and public providers of FS collection + haulage services interested in generating revenue from selling FS to farmers while avoiding illegal dumping and/or paymentof treatment fees Lack of enforcement of crop restrictions where such exist Institutional Lack of promotion and marketing of biosolids Lack of incentives by producers of Actual health hazards to produced in biosolids and by farmers to trade farmers and consumers FS treatment biosolids Health Farmers unaware of potential health risks Lack of hygiene and health Water pollution and risks to Lack of hygiene promotion protection public health Depletion of soil organic fraction Disposal Lack of implementation of FS treatment Indiscriminate dumping of schemes, of town planning and designation of untreated FS and need to be landfilled suitable treatment sites Lack of adequate fee structure and incentives for haulage of FS to treatment sites
11
2.3 Faecal Sludge Management Planning
The reality is that onsite sanitation is here to stay, either as an intermediate or permanent standalone solution, or in combination with sewer-based systems. Sludge management is an indispensable part of the maintenance of these facilities. Planning towards the management of faecal sludge generated from onsite technologies is imperative for the protection of human and environmental health (Strande et al.,
2014). The main aim of faecal sludge management planning is to convert complex sanitation situations into a well-organized and coordinated management framework
(Mulenga, 2014).
Ideally, every city should integrate faecal sludge management in every sanitation plan which deals with on-site sanitation facilities. Sanitation planning especially for faecal sludge management is often neglected because decision makers mostly see it less important than it is for water supply or toilet facilities provision
(Klingel et al., 2002). However, faecal sludge management is an important cost factor, which cannot be neglected and which always has to be taken into account when sanitation systems are planned. Sanitation planners and decision-makers must recognize the importance of faecal sludge management and plan for it whenever they deal with on-site sanitation facilities (Klingel et al., 2002).
Recently, an encouraging number of initiatives towards the improvement of faecal sludge management have been initiated in several countries in West Africa
(Senegal, Mali, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, and Ghana), South East Asia (Nepal,
Thailand, and Vietnam) and in Latin America. According to Hemkendreis et al.
(2014) these initiatives assist urban dwellers and authorities to overcome the challenges of indiscriminate and uncontrolled disposal of faecal sludge into the environment. A very important aspect of every plan proposal is taking into account
12 the management aspect through stakeholders. Stakeholders included were the various persons and institutions involved in the management of the entire faecal sludge service chain. As they present various potentials, they can influence or reject any project. (Klingel et al., 2002)
2.4 Faecal Sludge Management Service Chain
Faecal sludge management service chain starts from the household users who built the toilet facilities to store the sludge. When the pit gets full, the collection and the transport owners are supposed to come in to desludge the pit. The sludge removed needs to be treated before being discharged into the environment so a treatment or disposal site is needed. The treated sludge can be useful or sent to the landfill site.
Plate 2.1. shows the link between the faecal sludge management service chain. The faecal sludge management components are specifically the storage, emptying, collection and transport, treatment and enduse or disposal of the faecal sludge.
Plate 2.1. Faecal sludge management service chain:
(Gold and Strande, 2014)
2.4.1 Storage
All pit latrines, septic tanks and aqua privies are forms of storage facilities which fill up over time with faecal sludge. When the pit is almost full, users would stop using
13 the latrine. There are two options to solve the problem, either to stop using the latrine and construct a new one or empty the contents and reuse the pit (Thye et al., 2009).
The main difficulties are often the lack of available space or costs of constructing a new latrine superstructure. This makes pit emptying the only practical alternative
(Muller & Rijnsburger, 1994). When pit emptying requirements are neglected, it can have serious health and environmental consequences. For example, substandard pit emptying services in Freetown, Sierra Leone, have partly caused diarrhoeal disease, cholera outbreaks and high infant mortality, especially in slums and poor, unplanned areas (Thye et al., 2009).
2.4.2 Methods of collection and transportation
Pit emptying has become a major problem in developing countries especially the technical and managerial aspects. In many urban areas both mechanised and manual pit emptying services are being used for the collection and transportation of faecal sludge. Municipal authorities usually render the mechanised services but small to medium-sized enterprises also perform the same duties. The manual pit emptying is done by the informal sector.
a. Manual Pit emptying
Manual pit emptying is done either by hand using buckets and shovels or using a portable, manually operated pump such as the MAPET (Manual Pit Emptying
Technology), Gulper, Nibbler and MHDP (Manual Hand Desludging Pump). Plate
2.2. and Plate 2.3. show examples of the manual pit emptying method of removing sludge. Siregar (2014) reported that large number of households still use manual emptying either by family members or paid labour. This practice becomes the only option when mechanical emptying fees are too expensive for households to pay or
14 the sludge in the pit is solidified and therefore difficult to pump (Still & Taylor, 2011 and Strauss & Montangero, 2000).
Manual pit emptying also occurs when access to pits is too difficult for mechanical emptier due to informal settlements or bad road conditions. The sludge which is emptied manually is often dumped or buried in the vicinity of the household
(Garde & Koné, 2007). The manual pit emptying method is associated with considerable health problems to both the emptier and the general public because the faecal sludge collected through the manual method is usually buried in nearby land, or dumped in the fields or open drains (Chowdry & Kone, 2012). It is therefore apparent that the uncompleted service chain in the faecal sludge management scheme contributes to a high toll of preventable disease.
15
Plate 2.2. MAPET equipment in Congo
Tilley et al, 2014
16
Plate 2.3. A manual bucket emptying method
Tilley et al, 2014
b. Mechanical emptying
17
The main method of emptying is by the services of a vacuum truck. A vacuum truck is a motorised vehicle which is fixed with a pump and a storage tank. Plate 2.4. shows an example of mechanical emptying. A hose is connected to the pump which is lowered down into a pit, and the faecal sludge is pumped up into the storage tank on the truck. Most of the trucks have storage tank capacities of 3m3-10m3. Large pits for example septic tanks may require a truck to return more than once to fully empty the tank. Although smaller pumps which are more mobile have been developed, large vacuum trucks are still the norm. Unfortunately due to the unplanned nature of most of the settlements in low or middle income countries, the large trucks often have difficulty accessing pits/septic tanks in areas with narrow or non drivable roads
(Chowdry & Kone, 2012). Proper arrangements through faecal sludge management schemes and institutional set-ups are often needed to solve this kind of problem
(Garde & Koné, 2007).
Plate 2.4. Cesspit emptier removing faecal sludge from a septic tank
Source: Tilley et al, 2014.
18
Table 2.2 illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of manual and mechanical sludge removal.
Table 2.2. Comparison of manual emptying versus mechanical empting
Source: Eawag/Sandec 2008. Manual Emptying Mechanical Emptying
Advantages Easy Accessibility of on - site Fast and generally efficient facilities Minimizes health risk Local job creation and income generation Disadvantages Time-consuming Low accessibility
Health hazards for workers Expensive, capital and O&M costs (which are passed onto Hard, unpleasant work customers)
Requires a disposal point or Cannot pump thick, dried sludge discharge area (< 0.5 km) (must be manually removed)
Spillage and bad odours Pumps usually only suck down to a depth of 2-3 m
2.4.3 Treatment options
The choice of a faecal sludge treatment option depends primarily on the characteristics of the sludge generated in a particular town or city and on the treatment objectives either for reuse as fertilizer or land filling of treated sludge and discharge of treated liquids into receiving water bodies (Koné & Strauss, 2004). The specific challenges in treating faecal sludge in developing countries as opposed to treating wastewater lie in the fact that contaminant concentrations in faecal sludge are by a factor of 10-100 higher than in municipal wastewater, also appropriate, affordable, and enforceable discharge and reuse standards or guidelines pertaining to
19 faecal sludge treatment are nonexistent (Koné et al., 2010). The fact that faecal sludge exhibit widely varying characteristics, calls for a careful selection of appropriate treatment options. Faecal sludge and sludge from wastewater treatment plant may, in principle, be treated by the same type of treatment options. People have tried implementing conventional wastewater treatment technologies for example rotating biological contactors and conversional activated sludge. However they have not been well acclimatized to the African context. Factors such as high cost of installation, absence of sewer systems, availability of a reliable energy supply, unplanned local settlements, economic constraints and lack of expertise among others were prominent. Hence, more “natural” or passive systems also termed low cost technologies were adapted (Strauss et al., 1997). Several low cost treatment technology options that have been investigated upon by Sandec, EAWAG and their partners can now be applied for treating faecal sludge.
The potential treatment option that were identified as suitable for developing countries were: Planted drying beds (constructed wetlands), Waste Stabilization
Pond (WSP), Combined Composting (“co-composting”) with organic solid waste,
Anaerobic Digestion with biogas utilization and Unplanted Drying Beds (Cofie et al.,
2006; Heinss et al., 1998; Klingel et al., 2001 and Koottatep et al., 2005). The treatment processes above can be used alone or in combination to achieve the required standards of the sludge and leachate. Usually, there is a high content of coarse wastes such as plastics, tissues and paper in the faecal sludge discharged by collection and transport trucks, thus, a preliminary screening is needed for most treatment technologies (Strauss & Montangero, 2002).
20
a. Co-composting
Co-composting is a biological treatment process where faecal sludge is mixed together with other waste streams such as organic waste. The sludge is mixed in a proportion of 1: 2 or 1:3 of sludge to other waste under controlled predominantly aerobic conditions. The resulting end product provides a valuable resource that can improve local agriculture and food production(Cofie et al., 2009). Usually, the faecal sludge is dewatered by using settling thickening tanks or drying beds before it is used for co- composting. There is a high pathogen removal in the process through high temperatures about 60-70°C that is generated in the pile, and/or length of time the pile is stored. e.g. high removal of helminth eggs is possible < 1 viable eggs/g
TS (Strande et al., 2014). It can also be built and repaired with locally available materials. Co-composting does not require electrical energy for its operations.
However it requires a large land area and needs highly skilled personnel for its design and operations. The treated sludge can be used for soil fertilizer.
b. Unplanted drying beds
An Unplanted Drying Bed is a simple constructed, permeable bed that is loaded with faecal sludge to remove excess water from it. It collects percolated leachate and drains it through a pipe at the bottom and allows the sludge to dry by evaporation.
Approximately 50% to 80% of the sludge volume drains off as liquid (Strande et al.,
2014). However, the sludge is not stabilized or treated therefore needs to be dried further. The sludge should be loaded to approximately 200kg TS/m2/year (Koné &
Strauss, 2004) and it should not be applied in layers that are too thick (maximum
30cm) the thicker the sludge layer, the longer the drying period. It is possible to indicate a range of sludge loading rates which typically vary between 100 and 200 kg
21
TS/m2/year in tropical climates (Koné & Strauss, 2004). The final moisture content of the sludge should be approximately 60% after 10 to 15 days of drying. When the sludge is dried, it is removed from the sand layer to another place for further drying.
The effluent that is collected in the drainage pipes will also need to be treated properly in a polishing pond before being discharged. Some sand will be lost each time the dried sludge is removed by shovel from the bed so the top sand should be 25 to 30cm thick. The advantages and disadvantages of unplanted drying beds are presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3. Advantages and Disadvantages of unplanted drying beds
Advantages Disadvantages/limitations Good dewatering efficiency, Requires a large land area especially in dry and hot climates Odours and flies are normally noticeable Can be built and repaired with locally available materials Labour intensive removal
Relatively low capital costs; low Limited stabilization and pathogen reduction operating costs Requires expert design and construction Simple operation, only infrequent attention required Leachate requires further treatment
No electrical energy is required
c. Planted drying beds
A planted drying bed has the same features as that of unplanted drying beds but has an advantage. The planted drying bed has added benefit of losing transpiration by the plants and their root systems maintain the porosity of the filter. The improvement of the planted bed over the unplanted bed is that fresh faecal sludge can be directly applied onto the previous layer without having to remove the dried sludge from the
22 beds after each feeding/drying cycle. The appearance of planted drying bed is similar to vertical constructed wetlands in all aspect.
d. Waste stabilisation ponds
Waste stabilization ponds are large man-made basins in which wastewater especially municipal wastewater or faecal sludge can be treated to an effluent of relatively high quality. Waste stabilization ponds consist of several ponds having different depths and retention times. These are anaerobic ponds, facultative ponds and maturation ponds. A combination of these types of ponds in series is frequently implemented in wastewater treatment. Anaerobic ponds have depth of 3m to 5m and are used for settling of suspended solids and subsequent anaerobic digestion. The anaerobic pond is the primary treatment stage and reduces the organic load to about 40%-60% in the wastewater (Koné & Strauss, 2004). The effluent flows to the facultative pond. In the facultative pond with the depth of 2m to 3m, the remaining suspended solid and about 80% of organic loads are removed. Both aerobic and anaerobic digestion takes place in this pond. Maturation pond is the last one. This pond normally has a depth of 1m to 1.5m and is primarily responsible for pathogen removal by various mechanisms, including UV disinfection and daily high pH levels (Pisa et al., 2004).
Table 2.4. presents the advantages and disadvantages of waste stabilization ponds.
23
Table 2.4. Advantages and Disadvantages of waste stabilization ponds
Advantages Disadvantages Very effective removal of pathogens, Large land area required and therefore effluent suitable for reuse Performance strongly affected by Effective BOD removal temperature
Simple and cheap construction, Potential odour release operation and maintenance Low degree of operational control Low energy requirements
e. Anaerobic digestion with biogas utilization
The anaerobic digestion with biogas utilization option may be good for treating faecal sludge with higher-strength which has not undergone substantial degradation.
Types of such sludge may come from unsewered public toilets, whose pits are emptied at relatively high frequencies of a few weeks due to the high number of users. There are two types of digesters that can be found in practice, the fixed and floating dome units (Strauss & Montangero, 2002). Anaerobic digestion with biogas utilization is the option widely proposed for sludge treatment and energy recovery
(Arthur & Baidoo, 2011). The initial cost is relatively high as compared to other treatment options discussed already and it requires highly trained personnel for its operation and maintenance. The plant has to be shut down before undegraded solids can be removed from the digesters and it appears to be a difficult task. However it requires a small land area for its installment (Strauss & Montangero, 2002).
24
2.4.4 Selection of treatment options
The selection of a feasible treatment option is always limited by a set of factors requiring careful analysis. The first step is to pre-screen the technology options and exclude unfeasible technologies for example co-treatment with wastewater is not feasible for a city without a sewer system. Secondly the preselected potentially feasible options are compared based on the selected criteria as shown in Table 2.5. and Table 2.6. The final step is for decision-makers to evaluate and weigh the different options against the same criteria and select the most suitable option(s) for the faecal sludge management concept (Montangero et al., 2002)
Table 2.5. Criteria for selecting treatment options for Nam Dinh, Vietnam.
(Klingel et al., 2001)
Performance criteria Process simplicity and Cost-related criteria reliability criteria • Achievable consistency • O& M requirements • Land requirement and biochemical stability of biosolids • Skills required for • Investment costs • Achievable hygienic operation and monitoring quality of biosolids • Achievable quality of • Risk of failure related • Operating and liquid effluent to installations or to maintenance costs managerial or procedural measures
25
Table 2.6. Overview of design and performance of low cost treatment options.
(Strauss et al., 2002) *SAR: Solids Accumulation Rate
Treatment process Design criteria Treatment goal/achievable removal. or option Solids-Liquid Organic pollutants Parasites separation in liquid fraction (helminth eggs) 3 Settling / anaerobic 300-600g BOD5/m /d BOD5 > 60-70 % Filtered BOD5 > 50 % Concentrated in pond HRT: ≥ 15 days the settled and SAR*: 0.02 m3/m3 floating solids (Rosario) and 0.13 m3/m3 (Accra) 3 3 Settling/thickening SAR*: 0.13 m / m of raw SS: 60–70 % To be treated for further Concentrated in tank sludge COD: 30–50 % improvement in ponds or the settled and HRT: 4 h constructed wetlands floating solids Surface: 0.006 m2/capAccra Drying/dewatering SLR*:100-200kgTS/m2/yr SS: 60–80 % To be treated for further 100 % retained on beds S 0.05 m2/cap (Accra) COD: 70–90 % improvement in ponds or top of the filter N-NH4+ : 40–60 constructed wetlands media % Planted Drying Beds ≤ 250 kg TS/m2/year SS > 80 % To be treated for further 90 % retained on SAR*:20cm/year SAR: 20 cm/year improvement in ponds or top of the filter (Bangkok) constructed wetlands media Co-composting with Mixing ratio of FS/SW N/A N/A 1-2 unit log solid waste 1:2 to 1:3
Facultative stabilisa- 350 kg BOD5/ha/d Not for this > 60 % removal of SS Removed by tion ponds (Accra) purpose settlement
26
2.4.5 Enduse/ disposal
End products of the treated sludge for example dried or partially dried sludge, compost, leachate, and biogas, each have an intrinsic value, which can turn treatment from merely a method for environmental and public health protection to resource recovery and value creation (Weemaes and Verstraete, 2001). Historically, the most common resource recovery from sludge has been as a soil conditioner and organic fertilizer, as faecal sludge contain essential plant nutrients and organic matter that increases the water retaining capacity of soils. Researches are underway to recover end products as a bio-fuel (Diener et al., 2014 and Muspratt et al., 2014), for example pyrolysis, gasification, incineration and co-combustion or as resource recovery of organic matter through the growth of Black Soldier flies for protein production.
Table 2.7. gives a summary of potential resource recovery options from faecal sludge. With the implementation of resource recovery, it is important to evaluate constituents that may impact both humans and the environment. These include the presence of pathogens and heavy metals. Social factors such as acceptance in using products from faecal sludge treatment and market demand also need to be taken into account in order to ensure uptake of the intended endues (Diener et al., 2014).
27
Table 2.7. Summary of potential resource recovery options from faecal sludge
Source: (Kengne et al., 2014)
Produced Product Treatment or Processing Technologies
Soil conditioner Untreated faecal sludge Sludge from drying beds Compost Pelletising process Digestate from anaerobic digestion Residual from Black Soldier fly
Reclaimed water Untreated liquid faecalsludge Treatment plant effluent
Protein Black Soldier fly process
Fodder and plants Planted drying beds
Fish and plants Stabilisation ponds or effluent for aquaculture
Building materials Incorporation of dried sludge
Biofuels Biogas from anaerobic digestion Incineration/co-combustion of dried sludge Pyrolysis of faecal sludge Biodiesel from faecal sludge
2.5 Characterization of Faecal Sludge
The most important steps in designing faecal sludge treatment technologies that will function well and meet the defined treatment objectives is to quantify and characterize the faecal sludge to be treated. There is currently a lack of detailed information on the characterization of faecal sludge because of its high variability
(Schoebitz et al., 2014). The high variability of the faecal sludge is due to a wide range of operational factors such as the non-uniformity and management of the on- site sanitation facilities, toilet usage, average desludging intervals, method of collection and physical factors (Heinss et al., 1999). The parameters considered for
28 characterization of faecal sludge included total solid concentration (TS), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nutrients, pathogens and metals. Table 2.8. represents examples from the literature illustrating the high variability of faecal sludge characteristics and provided a comparison with sludge from a wastewater treatment plant (Strande et al., 2014). The organic matter, total solids, ammonium, and helminth egg concentrations in faecal sludge are typically higher by a factor of ten or a hundred compared to wastewater sludge (Jönsson et al.,
2005).
29
Table 2.8. Characteristics of faecal sludge compared with wastewater sludge
Parameter Faecal sludge Source WWTP Reference High strength Medium Low Strength Strength Example Public Toilet Septic Tank Sludge pH 1.5-12.6 – – USEPA (1994 Total Solids TS(mg/L) 52,500 12,000 - 35,000 – Kone and Strauss (2004) 30,000 22,000 – NWSC (2008) Total Volatile Solids (as a % of TS) 68 50-73 – Kone and Strauss (2004) 65 45 – NWSC (2008) COD (mg/L) 49,000 1,200 - 7,800 – Kone and Strauss (2004) – – 20 - 229 NWSC (2008) BOD (mg/L) 7,600 840 - 2,600 – Kone and Strauss (2004) Total Nitrogen, TN (mg/L) – 190 - 300 – Kone and Strauss (2004) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TKN (mg\L) 3,400 1,000 – Katukiza et al. (2012) NH4-N (mg/L) 3,300 - 150-1,200 – Kone and Strauss (2004) 2,000-5,000 <1,000 30-70 Heinss et al. (1998) Total Phosphorus, TP (mg P/L) 450 150 9- 63 NWSC (2008) Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) 1x105 1x105 6.3x104 - 6.6x105 NWSC (2008)
30
2.6 Quantification of Faecal Sludge
Estimation of accurate faecal sludge volume produced is very essential for the proper sizing of infrastructure required for collection and transport, discharge sites, treatment plants and enduse or disposal options (Strande et al., 2014). There are two theoretical approaches developed for the estimation of faecal sludge volumes. They are the Sludge Production Method which is used if the goal is to determine the total sludge produced, and the Sludge Collection Method which is used for the determination of expected sludge loading at a treatment plant. When using the sludge production method to estimate sludge quantities, factors such as the volume of water used for anal cleansing and flushing as well as water used in the kitchen need to be considered (Franceys et al., 1992). Sludge accumulation rates which is based on the type of on-site technology and usage is to be selected. Schoebitz et al. (2014) reported that although the ultimate goal is for all faecal sludge to be delivered to a treatment plant, it is not realistic to assume that all of the faecal sludge produced will initially be collected and transported for discharge at a faecal sludge treatment plant.
The Sludge Collection Method starts with faecal sludge collection and transport companies (both legal and informal), and uses the current demand for services to make an estimate of the volume of faecal sludge. Estimating generation of faecal sludge based on this method is complicated by many factors such as the presence of a legal discharge location or treatment plant, if the discharge fees are affordable, and whether there are enforcement measures to control illegal dumping.
If all of these factors are in place, then it is possible that the majority of the faecal sludge collected will be transported and delivered to a treatment site. Unfortunately, many assumptions have to be made in both methods due to a lack of available
31 information (Strande et al., 2014). It is difficult to quantify the volume of faecal sludge being dumped illegally directly into the environment, either by collection and transport companies, or by households that hire manual labours to remove faecal sludge. In addition, if volumes are being estimated for a treatment plant in an area where no legitimate discharge option currently exists, once it is built, it is expected to rapidly increase the market for these services, and hence the volume that will be delivered will also increase. This could result in an underestimation of the required capacity for the faecal sludge treatment plant (Parkinson & Tayler, 2003). Table 2.9. shows the various conditions which affect the sludge accumulation and their corresponding sludge accumulation rates (Franceys et al., 1992; Gao et al., 2002 and
Harvey et al., 2002)
Table 2.9. Sludge accumulation rates
Source: (Franceys et al., 1992)
Condition + material l/p/yr
Water; degradable anal cleaning materials 40
Water, non-degradable anal cleaning materials 60
Dry conditions, degradable materials 60
Dry conditions, non-degradable anal cleaning materials 90
2.7 Existing Faecal Sludge Treatment Schemes in Developing Countries
There are a number of countries and cities where faecal sludge treatment schemes have been implemented and are being operated. More treatment schemes might exist elsewhere. The listing shows that efforts are under way in a number of countries,
32 although several of the schemes might have become partially or fully dysfunctional, or operate below their design performance. Table 2.10. listed countries where faecal sludge management is practiced. A few of the schemes have been investigated upon and monitored to varying levels of details to date, viz. a full-scale pond scheme in
Accra, Ghana; a pond scheme in Cotonou, Benin, and a pilot co-composting plant in
Kumasi, Ghana (Strauss & Montangero, 2002). According to Strauss & Montangero
(2002) majority of the treatment works have never been monitored therefore no lessons could be learnt from their performance and shortcoming.
Table 2.10. Places where faecal sludge management is practiced
Country or city Information and Remarks Asia Approx. 100 plants (pond schemes, some of which are preceded by Indonesia Imhoff tanks) implemented; many plants reportedly under loaded or non-functional
2 plants in Jakarta comprising extended aeration followed by facultative and maturation ponds Thailand Low-cost schemes (digesters + drying beds + ponds) in provincial towns; high-tech plants (physico-chemical treatment followed by activated sludge) in metropolitan Bangkok Vietnam Drying ponds + sale of biosolids Nam Dinh (Vietnam) Constructed wetlands planned Vientiane (Laos) Low-cost treatment planned P.R. China Anaerobic digestion and other options Africa Ghana 2 schemes in Accra + 1 in Kumasi + a few smaller FSTP (all pond- based)
Pilot co-composting scheme in Kumasi Cotonou (Benin) 1 Pond scheme Bamako (Mali) 2 FSTP (constructed wetlands and ponds) planned Burkina Faso Co-treatment in ponds (under construction) Botswana, Tanzania Co-treatment with wastewater in ponds South Africa Co-treatment with wastewater in activated sludge plants
33
2.8 Efforts Towards Environmental Sanitation Development in Ghana
Efforts put in place by the government of Ghana to reach the MDG 7 by 2015 included the Environmental Sanitation Policy of Ghana (2012) which identified a number of basic elements and the strategies to promote accelerated development of the sanitation sector. The Public Health Act 851 was developed in 2012 to review and integrate the law relating to public health to prevent disease, promote, safeguard, maintain and protect the health of humans and animals and to provide for related matters was passed in parliament in 2012. At the National level, the National
Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan (NESSAP) in 2010 was developed. The municipal and district assemblies also developed Municipal/District
Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan (MESSAP/DESSAP) in 2012 in order to enhance the assessments on how effective the implementation of policy objectives and measures has been. Some of the elements and strategies with regards to sanitation in urban settings and relating to this project work include:
(a) Development and strengthening of the community‟s role in environmental sanitation;
(b) Development of human resources and strengthening institutional structures for managing environmental sanitation;
(c) Assigning delivery of a major proportion of environmental sanitation services to the private sector through contract, franchise, concession and other arrangements;
(d) Development of a strong legislative and regulatory framework, and capacity for supervising environmental sanitation activities and enforcing standards;
(e) Promotion of research to review sanitation technologies
34 f) Identification and dissemination of cost-effective, appropriate, affordable and environmentally friendly technologies to address environmental sanitation needs;
(g) Adoption of the cost recovery principle in the planning and management of environmental sanitation services.
Along with the above the following expected outputs and targets were also defined:
(a) All faecal sludge is disposed of either in hygienic on-site disposal systems or by hygienic collection, treatment and off-site disposal systems;
(b) All pan latrines are phased out;
(c) At least 90% of the population has access to an acceptable domestic toilet and the remaining 10% has access to hygienic public toilets;
(d) Hygienic public toilets are provided for the transient population in all areas of intense public activity;
(e) Environmental standards and sanitary regulations are strictly observed and enforced;
(f) The majority of environmental sanitation services are provided by the private sector (Ministry of Local Government, 2001).
Pollution laws in developed countries have gradually become more stringent over the decades whiles in developing countries including Ghana, the monitoring and en- forcement of policies and regulating systems are still lagging far behind (Von
Sperling & Fattal, 2001). For example the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have policies and regulations on the discharge standards of faecal sludge into the environment (MESSAP, 2012).
35
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 General Background of Study Area
3.1.1 Location
The study area of this research is Ho municipality. The Municipality has Ho as its capital which also serves as the capital and economic hub of the Volta Region. The
Municipality is located between latitudes of 6.345732°N and 6.937763°N and longitudes of 0.169445°E and 0.531539°E. It shares boundaries with Adaklu and
Agotime-Ziope Districts to the South, Ho West District to the North and West and the Republic of Togo to the East (MESSAP, 2012). The municipality has a population of 271,881 with a growth rate of 1.17% as at the 2010 population census.
Its total land area is 2,361 square kilometers thus representing 11.5 % of the region‟s total land area. About 44.3% of the land area is urban and the remaining 55.7% rural
(GSS, 2014).
36
Figure 3.1. Map of study area
3.1.2 Climate
Generally temperatures are high throughout the year in the Ho Municipality. The mean monthly temperature in the Municipality ranges between 22°C and 32°C while annual mean temperature ranges from 16.5°C and 37.8°C. The municipality is known to have two rainy regimes referred to as the major and the minor seasons. The major season begins from March to June with a mean annual rainfall figure of 194mm which is the highest, recorded in June. The minor season is from July to November
37 with an annual mean rainfall figure of 20.1mm which is the lowest recorded in
November (GSS, 2014).
3.1.3 Relief and drainage
The general relief of the Municipality is made up of both mountainous and lowland areas. The Akuapim - Togo Range forms the mountainous areas and they are mostly to the north and northeastern part of the municipality and have heights between 183 and 853 metres. These mountainous areas are the Awudome stretch in the southwest and Matse and Klefe in the northeast. The lowland areas in the municipality are to the South of the Municipality and are between 60 and 152 metres in height. The rocky nature of the area makes it difficult for runoffs to stay on the land. The general drainage pattern is towards the south and dominated by rivers like Tsawe (Alabo) and Kalapa, which flow into the lower Volta or Avu Lagoon (GSS, 2014).
3.1.4 Geology
The Ho Municipality is mainly formed of rocks classified as the Dahomean and the
Togo series. These rocks retain water in the joints, cracks and fractures which are extractable by drilling. The water table in the area is between 8.5m and 12m below the ground level thus making it vulnerable to contamination from percolates (GSS,
2014) .
3.1.5 Social characteristics
a. Social and cultural structure
Traditionally, the chiefs are the main custodians of stool lands. They are also the symbol of authority in the Municipality. The Municipality is made up of two major
38 traditional councils. These are the Asogli Traditional Council and Hokpeta
Traditional Council. Both are headed by a paramount chief, and they are supported by divisional and sub chief who play various roles in the traditional society. The most predominant religion in the Municipality is Christianity which constitutes 91.9% of the population followed by Islam (3.2%). Traditional religion forms 2.2%, and other religions constitutes less than one percent of the population (GSS, 2014).
b. Employment status
Of the population 15 years and older, 58.5 % are self-employed without employees while employees constitute 27.6%. Overall, men constitute the highest proportion in each employment category except self-employed (without employees), contributing family workers and domestic employees. The private informal sector is the largest employer in the municipality, employing 76.7% of the population followed by the public sector (16.1%). As high as 68.6% of the households in the municipality are engaged in agriculture. In the rural localities, about one third (37.2%) are agricultural households while in the urban localities, 31.4 % of households are into agriculture.
Most households in the Municipality (90.3%) are involved in crop farming. Poultry
(chicken) is the dominant animal reared in the Municipality accounting for 58.1%
(GSS, 2014).
3.1.6 Water and sanitation
a. Water provision and management
The provision and management of potable water has not been an easy task to Ho
Municipal Assembly. The Assembly is currently faced with a number of challenges in its quest to make water accessible to the people. The challenges range from human
39 to natural factors. Most water sources dry-up in the dry season, compelling people in those areas to revert to drinking from unwholesome sources, which make them vulnerable to water related diseases. Even though wells appear to be the major source of water, they are mostly left unprotected (MESSAP, 2012) .
For economic reasons, most consumers of the pipe system in the municipality have serious difficulties in paying their water bills. This adversely affects the operation and management of the facility. Boreholes breakdown constantly as a result of excessive pressure coupled with the inability of communities to raise enough money for replacement and general maintenance. The inability of the people to afford potable water implies that they will resort to the use of unhygienic sources of water which affects their health (MESSAP, 2012).
b. Solid waste management
Solid Waste disposal continues to be a challenge as population grows along with the increasing economic activities in the Municipality. Although the Assembly has an
Environmental Health and Sanitation Management Department whose primary responsibility is to ensure the collection, transport, disposal and treatment of waste, it engages the services of the private sector in waste collection and disposal activities.
The Municipal Assembly currently collects about 20% of solid waste generated while a private company Zoomlion Ghana Limited collects the remaining 80%
(MESSAP, 2012).
There are three types of waste collection systems in the municipality: a communal system which requires the disposal of waste by residents at designated refuse disposal points with storage containers; a block collection system where private companies use vehicles to collect waste from house to house; and an informal
40 collection system where private individuals embark on house to house refuse collection using tricycles mounted with a cart. A percentage of households also dump indiscriminately the solid waste generated. The present final refuse disposal site is no longer suitable for the volume of waste generated in the municipality due to the increase in population and its consequent commercial activities (MESSAP, 2012).
c. Liquid waste management
The three main facilities available to households in the municipality are water closets
(WC) 18.9%, Kumasi ventilated improved pit (KVIP) 11.9% and ventilated improved pit (VIP) latrines 16.8%. In the Ho Municipal area, 17.5 % of households have no toilet facility and therefore engaged in open defecation or what is sometimes referred to as „free range‟(GSS, 2013). In the absence of in-house toilet facilities, the tendency across the Ho Municipal Assembly is the increasing use of public toilet facilities and other shared facilities (MESSAP, 2012).
The current practice of disposal of faecal sludge in the municipality is by a cesspit emptier to remove the sludge to final disposal sites at Tsito and Sokode Ando without any treatment. There is a relatively strong private sector participation in the faecal sludge management in Ho. The Assembly manages 50% while the remaining
50% is managed by the private sector. The private sector includes contractors who manage commercial public toilet, entrepreneurs in the collection and transport business and masons. Regarding the method of disposing liquid waste, the most common method of disposing bathroom liquid waste is through soak away followed by disposal through gutters. Majority of household dispose of liquid waste generated in the kitchen and from laundry by throwing it onto their compound. Some of the households too throw liquid waste onto streets or outside (MESSAP, 2012).
41
3.2 Methodology
The Study adopted combinations of desk study and literature reviews, informant interviews, household survey and field visits to obtain the necessary data.
3.2.1 Desk study
It was important to conduct desk study in order to gather all the relevant data needed for the research to be successful. The Municipal Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan (MESSAP) was collected from the Ho Municipal Assembly and studied. Peer-reviewed journals and articles related to the topic were also obtained for the literature review.
3.2.2 Field observation
Transect walks and visual inspection was embarked on through the five communities
(Ho Township, Hodzo Aviepe, Sokode Gborgame, Matse and Ziavi Dzogbe) selected for this study. The two disposal sites (Sokode Ando and Tsito) were also visited to observe the way and manner cesspit emptiers discharge the sludge at the disposal site and also check the frequency at which they go there. This activity was also undertaken to have a fair idea of the general hygiene and also ascertain some of the secondary data collected and assertions made by key informants from the interview.
42
3.2.3 Key informant interview
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with the Municipal Environmental Health
Officer (MEHO), Regional Director of EPA, the cesspit emptier drivers and public toilet attendants to collect a wide range of information regarding the study.
3.2.4 Household survey
The purpose of the household survey was to determine the socio-economic profile of the respondents (including sex, age, educational level and employment status of respondents), perception of sanitation practices, faecal sludge reuse and faecal sludge management (desludging, treatment and disposal). The questionnaires were designed and tested in conjunction with the project research team based on previous questionnaires on faecal sludge management and the understandings got during the earlier visits to the 5 communities (see Appendix D). The questionnaires were administered to 30 households per community selected for the study. Only households were targeted for the questionnaire administration in the communities.
Both the purposeful or stratified and random sampling were adopted. Ewe language was the main local language used during the household interviews. English language was also used where the respondents could not understand the Ewe.
Microsoft Excel Statistical software was used to analyze the data. Together with the municipal environmental health officer (MEHO), stakeholder analysis was developed.
43
3.2.5 Faecal sludge sampling
Samples of raw faecal sludge were taken at the disposal site when the cesspit emptier was discharging to have homogenous mixture of the sludge. Two samples each were collected from three different types of onsite facilities that is private VIP, private
Septic tank and public toilet (VIP and Septic tank). For each facility, the samples were taken at the start of discharge, when the gauge was midway and at the end of the discharge into well washed plastic bottles. The three samples from each facility were mixed together to form a composite sample of that facility and a portion was put in separate plastic bottles for laboratory analysis. The parameters that were analyzed were total solids (TS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), helminth eggs, faecal coliform, total nitrogen (TN), total nitrogen
- kjeldalh (TKN), nitrates (NO3 ) total phosphorus (Ptot), potassium (K), total volatile solids (TVS) electrical conductivity (EC) and pH. The values obtained were evaluated and compared with typical physicochemical parameters of faecal sludge reported in literature.
3.2.6 Estimation of faecal sludge quantities
Assumptions made:
All the faecal sludge produced will be sent to the treatment plant
The faecal sludge was not diluted by water during desludging
The sludge production method was used in estimating the quantity of sludge that would be generated. The design period for the treatment facility is selected to be 10 years because from experience after this period the major components of the treatment plant should be replaced or expanded, therefore the population data was
n also projected to 2025. Geometric formula (Pn = Po (1+r) ) was used to project the
44 future population figure as at 2025. This formula from literature (Alcantara, 2002) was considered more accurate method of projecting population figures. Sludge accumulation rate of 60l/p/yr (Franceys et al., 1992) was selected because water and anal cleansing material is included in the faecal sludge.
3.2.7 Selection of treatment option
A pre-screening based on information from literature (Hemkendreis et al., 2014) was conducted to eliminate technology options not suitable for treating faecal sludge in
Ho municipality. For example there is no sewer system in Ho municipality therefore the technology option “co-treatment with wastewater” was eliminated. 5 of the suitable treatment options for developing countries were compared under the same indicators (achievable hygienic quality of bio-solids, skills required for operation and monitoring, operating and maintenance costs, investment costs and land requirement). One of the rules in multi-criteria analysis is to weigh these indicators according to their relative importance. The performance of the treatment technologies under each indicator was also rated for example pathogen removal efficiencies was rated in this case from 5 to 1, with 5 being the best and 1 being the least. The technology with the highest alternative mark is associated with the most feasible technology (Montangero and Strauss, 2002).
45
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Existing Faecal Sludge Management Practices
Assessment of existing faecal sludge management practices in the Ho municipality was carried on the following infrastructure and trends.
Defaecation practices.
Types of household toilets facilities.
Collection and haulage methods.
Treatment unit/disposal site.
Enabling environment for faecal sludge management.
4.1.1 Defaecation practices
The various suburbs in Ho municipality have distinct demography. Figure 4.1. represents the defaecation practices used by the respondents. The study revealed that
Ho Township recorded the highest percentage of respondents with their own household toilets (59.3%). Hodzo recorded the highest percentage of respondents who depended on public toilets (90%) followed by Ziavi (88 %), Matse (83.6%),
Sokode Gborgame (65%) and then Ho Township (30%). This confirmed the statement by GSS, (2014) that in the absence of in-house toilet facilities, the tendency across Ho Municipality is the increasing use of public toilet facilities and other shared facilities.
46
100 88 90 90 83.6 80 65 70 59.3 60 50 40 30 30 20 20 14 15 10 9.3 8.5 10 0.7 1 0.4 1 2 0.7 0.2 0.3
Defaecation Practices DefaecationPractices (%) 0 Ho Township Sokode Matse Ziavi Hodzo Community HH with their own toilet HH that depend on public toilet HH that use open defaecation HH that use other
Figure 4.1. Defaecation practices.
Matse recorded the highest percentage of respondents who practice open defaecation
(15%) while Hodzo recorded the least percentage of respondents who practiced other forms of defaecation practices (0.3%). This support the assertion made in the
MESSAP (2012) that 17.5% of the population in Ho municipality still practice open defaecation. With regards to the Environmental Sanitation Policy of Ghana, (2001) the study results clearly show that more effort must be put in place in order to eliminate open defaecation practices. Open defaecation is also frowned upon globally and is considered an inappropriate defaecation practice (UNICEF & WHO, 2008).
4.1.2 Household toilets facilities used in Ho municipality
The results on the types of household toilet facilities used by the respondents are presented in Figure 4.2. The results show that there were basically five types of household toilets in Ho municipal area. These technologies include the Kumasi
Ventilated Improved Pit (KVIP), Ventilated improved pit latrines (VIP), Water
Closet (WC), Pit latrine and Bucket/Pan latrine. Ho Township recorded the highest
47 percentage of respondents who used water closet (59.3%). This is comparable to the finding in the MESSAP, (2012) which stated that 62% of residents having access to household water closet in the municipality is located in the Ho Township.
100 90 90 85 80 70 70 70 62 60 50 40 30 23 22 15 20 10 10 9 5 5 4 6 5 10 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 3 0 0 TOILET FACILITIES (%) (%) FACILITIES TOILET Ho Township Sokode Matse Ziavi Hodzo COMMUNITY
WC KVIP VIP Pit latrine Pan & Bucket
Figure 4.2. Types of household toilet facilities
Respondents from Sokode Gborgame had the highest percentages for both VIP
(70%) and KVIP (10%) while Hodzo the least with both VIP (5%) and KVIP (3%).
Hodzo recorded the highest percentage of respondents for pit latrine (90%), followed by Matse (85%) and Ziavi (70%). These findings were different from the data obtained from GSS, (2013) which reported that 16.8% of the residents in the municipality are dependent on pit latrine, (18.9%) have access to water closet and
(11.9%) use the KVIP. Also contrary to the assertion made by the GSS, (2013) that
0.4% of resident in the Ho municipality use Pan/Bucket latrine, there were no records of any in the five communities selected for the study.
48
4.1.3 Desludging and transportation of faecal sludge
Mostly faecal sludge from KVIPs, VIPs and WCs with septic tanks are emptied when the containment structure gets full. Emptying is done both mechanically and manually. About 70% of the respondents have their pits desludged by hiring the services of cesspit emptier providers. Approximately 10% of the respondents also use manual method to remove the sludge from the pit by using bucket and shovel
(Strauss & Montangero, 2000; Thye et al., 2009 and Murungi & Van Dijk, 2014) . It was observed that the percentage of respondents doing manual emptying may be more because some of the respondents were afraid of being arrested and prosecuted and therefore were not willing to disclose how the pits were emptied. A few of the respondents also use chemicals such as calcium carbide to reduce the volume of faecal sludge generated in their pits. All pit latrines in the communities selected for the study were not emptied when full but rather, the superstructure was relocated to a new place and the old pit sealed with sand.
The study also revealed that, desludging of faecal sludge from septic tanks was much easier than that of the KVIP or VIP since the sludge was already in its liquid form. However, desludging of the KVIPs or VIPs poses problems because its construction allows most of the liquid to percolate into the soil thus making the sludge to become too hard for pumping. Also users sometimes dumped in all sorts of solid materials such as rag, plantain leaves and corn husk into the pits which block the hose of the cesspit emptier. These findings were comparable to research findings by Antwi-Agyei et al., (2009). Septic tanks that were not emptied on recommended desludging intervals also encountered this type of desludging difficulties (see appendix C Plate 18). The faecal sludge would first have to be pounded with addition of water to loosen the faecal sludge and remove all solid material before the cesspit
49 emptier can finally pump it. This activity actually increases the desludging cost per trip from GHS 280 - 350 to GHS 700 - 800 depending on the service provider.
The study showed that the pits were desludged only when the pits get filled up. The frequency at which the toilet facilities were desludged was dependent on the construction of the pit, capacity of the pit as well as usage and it was observed to be between 5 - 10 years. This finding is inconsistent with the report by Adubofour et al.
(2012) that toilet pits in Kumasi takes 4.2 years to fill up. The municipality can boast of two cesspit emptiers, one belonging to the Municipal Assembly and the other a private owner with capacities of 5 m3 and 6 m3 respectiv ely. These vehicles were relatively old, often break down and at times remain out of use for 4 to 15 days.
The majority of the people interviewed were willing to pay for the services but perceived the desludging cost was expensive and this is comparable to was reported by Nguyen (2015) that in Vietnam most people cannot afford to pay the high cost of emptying the pits.
4.1.4 Treatment/disposal practices of faecal sludge
It was observed that there were no treatment facilities for treating faecal sludge in the
Ho municipality. This assertion is in line with what was reported by Luthi (2014) that faecal sludge treatment facilities are not available in most developing countries.
Through field observations, the study showed that there are two disposal sites in the municipality where the faecal sludge is dumped untreated (see appendix C Plates 15
& 16). This confirmed the publication by Strande et al., (2014) that in Ghana, faecal sludge is discharged into the environment without treatment. The site which is located at Awudome Tsito belonged to a private person and a fee of GHS 30.00 is paid per trip to the landlord. The difficulty is that this area is no longer part of Ho
50 municipality and the new district that is Ho West may decide to stop the practice.
The other disposal site located at Sokode Ando is within Ho municipal area.
The study revealed that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Ghana has no standards for the disposal or use of faecal sludge into the environment. This can be compared to the a similar assertion made by Strauss et al. (2002) that the existing regulations do not stipulate any standards for the disposal of faecal sludge in Argentina. It was interesting to know that there is a viable market for the treated sludge as fertilizer for farmers in the municipality. About 90% of the farmers that were interviewed were willing to use the treated sludge as fertilizer in their farms.
This is in agreement with the report by Owusu-Bennoah & Visker (1994) that 90% of faecal sludge collected in Tamale, Ghana was used by the farmers as fertilizer.
The study also revealed that 95% of the respondents have no difficulties with buying crops that are cultivated with the treated sludge because they admitted that some of the farmers are already using the untreated faecal sludge in farming.
4.1.5 Enabling environment
According to the head of Environmental Department at the Ho municipal Assembly, the sanitation activities in Ho municipality are controlled by the government through the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD). The Ministry also entrusts the responsibility of urban sanitation to the District Assemblies in this case the Ho Municipal Assembly (HMA). Actually, there were limitations to the activities and responsibilities in terms of faecal sludge management. This was due to the non-existence of policies and regulations regarding faecal sludge management and this is in accordance with what was reported by Strauss et al. (2003) that in
51
Kumasi, Ghana lack of regulatory systems regarding faecal sludge management was a weakness.
The study also revealed that Public Health Act 851 is the only legal document which is use in prosecuting recalcitrant residents as demonstrated in appendix C
Plate 1. The Assembly has its own bye-laws on sanitation which is silent on faecal sludge management but it is yet to be gazette. There is a strong public private relationship between the assembly and the private entrepreneurs who own the cesspit emptiers used in the collection of the faecal sludge as well as the private entrepreneurs who manage public toilet which were commercialized.
The sources of income for sanitation activities in the Ho municipal assembly include collection of property rates from households, fines and penalties collected from recalcitrant residents and allocations from the government to the assembly for sanitation activities and this is similar to the report by Jeuland et al. (2004) and
Steiner et al. (2003) that the municipality needs to develop a more effective way of generating income to sustain faecal sludge management that is through sanctioning system for example by imposing fines or non-renewal of faecal sludge collection contracts with entrepreneurs.
4.2 Challenges Faced in Faecal Sludge Management in Ho Municipality
The study identified that at household level, individuals were interested in having their own toilet facilities but lack of finance was a real challenge. This was not different from what was reported by Nguyen, (2015) that most people in Vietnam cannot afford to build a hygienic sanitation facility. Due to the housing deficit in the
Ho municipality, most people are living in rented premises where toilet facilities were shared by other tenants. When the pit is full desludging becomes difficult
52 because some members were not willing to contribute toward it. The pits become full to the brim and at times even over flow into the environment (see appendix C Plates
2, 9 &10). Some of the households that do not share toilets but shared common pits also face the same challenges.
The study established that the cesspit emptier belonging to the municipal authority was old (see Appendix C Plate 19) and mostly out of service. This supports the assertion made by Hemkendreis et al., (2014) that municipal emptying vehicles are frequently not in operation. About 20% of the respondents who emptied their pits by employing the services of the cesspit emptiers expressed the frustration they have to go through before getting their services rendered. This confirmed the reason why some of the respondents engage in manual emptying. Respondents admitted that they at times drop non-degradable materials for example rags into the pits and this blocks the hose of the pump during desludging. Getting access to the toilet facilities was difficult due to narrow roads leading to the houses or clustering of houses (Garde &
Koné, 2007) and operators have to join long hoses and pass it through other people houses to be able get access to the facilities ( see appendix C Plate 6).
The workers who desludge the pits lack appropriate personal protective equipment (see appendix C Plate 7) and this exposes them to serious health risks.
The travelling distance to the final disposal site from the farthest communities that is
Shia is about 100 km and is considered too far thus making the charges for desludging too high for households to bear. The absence of a treatment facility in the municipality is a worrying condition because runoffs from the disposal site is presumed to carry pathogens to the water bodies downstream which serves as source of drinking water to communities downstream ( see appendix C Plate 3).
53
The municipal assembly equally has some challenges in terms of faecal sludge management. The fund released by the government towards sanitation activities is inadequate therefore the assembly is not able to subsidize provision of toilet facilities for the people. Rules and regulations towards faecal sludge management were also lacking. Table 4.1. presents a summary of challenges faced in faecal sludge management in the Ho municipality.
54
Table 4.1. Challenges faced in faecal sludge management in Ho municipality
FS management Causes Problems Consequences component and aspect
Storage Lack of standard design of pits Contamination of the water table Health hazards through Poor construction of pits People resort to open defaecation as the pollution of the environment Addition of nondegradable materials to the only way to satisfy their sanitation (water and sand) pits needs. Inability of household to construct their own toilet facilities. Inadequate supervision of pit construction by the Ho municipal assembly
Collection + Limited or no accessibility to pits Overflowing of pits. Unaesthetic Transportation Lack of appropriate emptying equipment Emptying frequency often very low Human and environmental Lack of appropriate personal protective Users not able to afford emptying fees. health are at risk equipment Manual emptying is practiced Poor service management Long distance to disposal sites Lack of urban planning resulting in slums Lack of suitable incentive for workers and sanctions structure Treatment/Disposal Lack of proven and appropriate treatment Faecal sludge is dumped untreated into Pollution of the environment options the environment. Lack of discharge standards. Lack of treatment facilities. Reuse Lack of information on faecal sludge Faecal sludge is used untreated in the Contamination of food treatment. farms crops`
55
4.3 Improving Faecal Sludge Management
To be able to improve faecal sludge management in Ho municipality, a set of factors including technical and non-technical were considered. The main objective of developing the faecal sludge management is to reduce environmental pollution and protect human health. In summary, for the challenges that were enumerated above to be eliminated, there is the need to ensure that all faecal sludge generated in the municipality is discharged at designated treatment plant (Montangero et al., 2002).
The technical factors that were considered to achieve the above objectives include: effective collection and transportation of the faecal sludge, selection of a suitable treatment option and the site where the treatment option will be located.
The non-technical factors that were considered were the managerial aspect of the system and this include the role and responsibility of stakeholders in the faecal sludge management and cost recovery mechanisms.
4.3.1 Collection and transportation of faecal sludge
The Sludge Production Method for estimating volume of faecal sludge produced was used. For the purposes of this study it was assumed that all the sludge produced will be discharged at the treatment plant. The projected population of 323,710 at 2025 was used to estimate the sludge produced. The amount of sludge to be collected and transported to the treatment plant a day was calculated to be 225m3/day (see appendix A for detailed calculations).
The emptying and transportation of the faecal sludge will be done mainly by cesspit emptier and where access to the facility is difficult, a gulper could be used.
56
This is in line with what was suggested by (Tilley et al., 2014) that manual motorized equipment such as MAPET should be provided where access to the facility is difficult. This will curb used to end the manual emptying activities. The number of cesspit emptiers needed to desludge the toilet facilities effectively is 5, each of capacity 10 m3. The number of trips per cesspit emptier per day would be 5 trips.
These calculations were based on the projection of population to 2025. With operation and maintenance in mind, one truck can be pulled aside for maintenance purposes, which would not have any effect on desludging schedule of the faecal sludge.
4.3.2 Characteristics of untreated faecal sludge in Ho municipality
Table 4.2. represents the summary analysis of mean values of characteristics of faecal sludge generated in the Ho municipality. The mean pH values and the corresponding standard deviations were 7.9 ± 0.15, 7.55 ± 0.25 and 7.5 ± 0.5 for public toilet, septic tank and VIP latrines respectively. This is comparable to the assertion made by
(Ingallinella et al., 2002; Al-Sa‟ed & Hithnawi, 2006 and Cofie et al., 2006) that pH of faecal sludge from septic tanks is normally in the range of 6.5 to 8.0.
Faecal sludge is noted for very high total solid concentration which typically consists of suspended and dissolved solids. The mean value of the total solid concentration for public toilet was 75693 ± 34600 mg/L and this is not different from the range of values indicated in literature (Heinss et al., 1998; Koné & Strauss, 2004 and NWSC, 2008). The mean BOD values were 5950 ± 50, 5875 ± 1625 and 5250 ±
750 for public toilet, septic tank and VIP latrine respectively. This is very close in range irrespective of the on-site facility but was in line with the study by (Koné &
57
Strauss, 2004). The mean values of NH4-N recorded were 5843 ± 1117 mg/L, 1709.5
± 1446.5 mg/L and 326 ± 165 mg/L for public toilet, septic tank and VIP latrine respectively. The high values of NH4-N could be a threat to the environment for example eutrophication and algal blooms. Phosphorous and Potassium concentrations of the sludge from public toilet were 3109 ± 2611 mg/L and 3105 ±
295 mg/L respectively. This indicates that the high nutrient values found in faecal sludge could be harnessed for beneficial use in agriculture.
58
Table 4.2. Characteristics of faecal sludge from on-site facilities
* NWSC (2008), Heinss et al. (1998), Kone and Strauss (2004)
Parameter Unit Public Toilet Septic tank VIP Latrine Typical Low Strength Typical High Strength FS (Septic tank)* FS (Public Toilets)* pH 7.95 ± 0.15 7.55 ±0.25 7.5 ± 0.2 – – EC μS.cm-1 22365 ± 645 6275 ± 1435 3195 ± 415 – – TS Mg.L-1 75693 ± 34600 26803 ± 14647 39164.5 ± 28831.5 ≤ 20000 ≥ 35000 TVS % of TS 13260 ± 5940 4050 ± 2450 8325 ± 6575 10000 - 14000 ≥ 30000 TSS Mg.L-1 26925 ±12275 7700 ± 4500 16750 ± 13150 – – BOD Mg.L-1 5950 ± 50 5875 ± 1625 5250 ± 750 840 – 2600 7600 COD Mg.L-1 37000 ± 2000 8900 ± 1100 31000 ± 1000 ≤ 20000 ≥ 20000 – 50000 P Mg.L-1 3109 ± 2611 320 ± 61 241 ± 75 150 450 K Mg.L-1 3105 ± 295 2235 ± 2035 210 ± 40 – – TKN Mg.L-1 3250 ± 250 750 ± 250 3000± 200 1000 3400
NH4-N Mg.L-1 5843 ± 1117 1709.5 ± 1446.5 326 ± 165 ≤ 1000 2000 – 5000 - NO3 Mg.L-1 1.65 ± 0.45 1.1 ± 0.2 0.4 ± 0.3 0.2 21 Hel.Eggs N/l 15500 ± 500 10000 ± 5700 9750 ± 4750 10000 20000 – 60000 Faecal. C MPN/100ml 25500 ± 9500 3350 ± 150 15800 ± 14200 4000 20000 – 60000
59
4.3.3 Criteria for selecting the suitable faecal sludge treatment options
Based on the characteristics of the faecal sludge in Table 4.2. and the faecal sludge management objective of using the treated sludge for farming, five out of the low cost treatment options for developing countries (Steiner et al., 2002) were selected for consideration. They are:
Unplanted drying beds (UDBs)
Planted drying beds (PDBs)
Combined composting (“co-composting”) with organic solid waste
Anaerobic digestion with biogas utilization (AD)
Waste Stabilisation Pond (WSP)
The criteria used in selecting the sustainability indicators below were based on the selection criteria in Table 2.5 and Table 2.6. The indicators were weighed and rated over a total of 100 based on their scale of preference and this is consistent with what
Klingel et al. (2001) suggested that the stakeholders judging on the preferred treatment option should do the weighing of the indicators. Each of the five treatment options were evaluated against the rated indicators as below.
Sludge quality 30
Investment cost 30
O& M cost 20
Land requirement 15
Labour requirement 5
The performance of the treatment options under each indicator was also rated based on the cost evaluation of the treatment options presented in Table 4.3. for example annualized capital cost was rated in this case from 5 to 1, with 5 corresponding to
60 lowest capital cost and 1 corresponding to highest cost. For instance Unplanted
Drying Beds has the lowest annualized capital cost of 30 US$ per t TS therefore it was rated 5 and Anaerobic Digestion with biogas has the highest annualized cost of
250 US$/t TS therefore was rated 1.
Table 4.3. Evaluation criteria for five treatment options
Treatment Capital O&M Land Labour Reference Option Cost Cost Req Req [US$/t TS] [US$/t TS] m2 Unplanted 30 24 6,600 High (Steiner et al., Drying Beds 2002)
Planted 81 79 3500 Medium (Koottatep et al., Drying Beds 2001)
Co- 50 74 6,500 High (Steiner et al., composting 2002)
Waste 35 21.5 6800 Very high (Steiner et al., Stabilization 2002) Ponds Anaerobic 250 200 700 High (Müller, 2007) Digestion with Biogas
Table 4.4. presents the multi criteria analysis performed among five low cost treatment options. From the multi criteria analysis, unplanted drying bed (UDB) came out with the highest mark (395) which is closer to the total mark (500), therefore it is recommended for the municipality. The treatment plant will start with a bar screen at the discharge area to remove large particles from the sludge, then the drying beds on which the sludge will be loaded. The effluent from the drying beds will be sent to small vertical flow constructed wetland for polishing before being discharged into the receiving water body. The dried faecal sludge will be removed from the beds after two weeks to the composting area where it will be dried further and left to mature for about 2 to 3 months to ensure helminth eggs are completely 61 rendered inactive. The compost can then be bagged and sold to the farmers as fertilizer.
Table 4.4. Multi-criteria analysis performed for 5 selected technologies
Treatment Sludge Initial O&M Land Labour Total Options Quality Cost Cost Requirement 30 30 20 15 5 500
UDBs 3 5 5 2 5 395
PDBs 2 4 4 3 4 325
AD 1 1 1 5 1 160
Co-composting 4 2 3 4 2 310
WSP 5 3 2 1 3 310
4.3.4 Estimation of number of drying beds
From the characterization of the faecal sludge, the average total solid concentration was found to be 61,000 mg TS/L. The volume of faecal sludge to be delivered to the treatment plant is 225m3/day. The plant would receive sludge only on weekdays (5 days), for the 52 weeks of the year. According to Strauss and Montangero (2002) sludge loading rate of 200 kg TS/m2/year is applicable to climatic regions where there is enough sunshine. Ho municipality where the plant is to be located has desirable climatic conditions therefore a sludge loading rate of 200 kg TS/m2/year was assumed. The annual mass was calculated to be equal to 3,568,500 (kg TS/year).
See detailed calculations on appendix B.
Taking the annual sludge mass into account, a drying bed with an area of
3,568,500 (kg TS/year) / 200 kg (TS/m2/year) = 17,843 m2 17,845m2 is required.
Assuming a sludge loading depth of 0.30 m and a flow rate of 225 m3/day is received, a capacity of 750 m2/day needs to be available. Assuming that 1 bed can
62 accommodate 750 m2/day, then a minimum of 24 drying beds are required to treat a sludge mass of 3,568,500 kg TS/yr. The surface area of each bed is 750 m2, and the drying duration will be one week, with one day left for the operator to remove the sludge. To make the operation and maintenance easier and more robust, it is recommended that the drying duration is two weeks. Hence, 30 beds are proposed but will be constructed in 3 phases. The total surface area needed for the drying beds will then become 22,500 m2, and the effective sludge loading rate would be 160 kg
TS / m2/year.
A total land area of 28,000 m2 is needed for the construction of the treatment plant. The excess land area is to provide adequate road access for trucks and allow free movement of the trucks in the plant as well as providing office building and landscaping. Figure 4.3. presents a schematic diagram of the proposed treatment plant.
140 m
200 m
Figure 4.3. Schematic diagram of the proposed treatment plant
63
4.3.5 Site selection
In order to select a site for the treatment plant, the following rules were observed.
The site was selected to be centrally located so as to reduce transport distances by the cesspit emptier thus reducing emptying charges. Due to nuisance of odour and flies that is usually associated with faecal sludge, the site was located away from human dwellings to prevent spreading of diseases. Flooding was considered to cause problems to the treatment of the sludge and offices therefore the selected area is not prone to flooding. By using Google earth and the criteria outlined above, 2 locations were identified to be ideal for the treatment plant as illustrated in Figure 4.4. They are at Takla and Sokode Ando. Takla is more centrally located to the rest of the communities in the municipality than Sokode Ando and there is a receiving water body which could be used as an out fall for the effluent. Though Sokode Ando is one of the old sites where the sludge is already disposed it is about 100 km from the Shia which is considered the farthest town in the municipality. Additionally there is no receiving water body close to the located site and this will require piping of the effluent.
64
Shia
Hodzo Ziavi Takla
Sokode Ando Site Location
Site Location
Figure 4.4. Proposed site location of treatment plant
4.4 Identification of Stakeholders in the Faecal Sludge Management.
Stakeholders needed to sustain the faecal sludge management were identified in conjunction with the Municipal Environmental Officer in charge of sanitation in the municipality. The identified stakeholders in the faecal sludge management were the household users, the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
(MLGRD), Ho Municipal Assembly (HMA), Regional Coordinating Council (RCC),
Traditional Leaders, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), Other Governmental departments and Agencies, the private sector, farmers, and external donors or
Support Agencies. The stakeholders identified is comparable to the key players identified in the management of faecal sludge by Klingel et al. (2002). However, it is important considering the fact that different stakeholders differ in terms of power or authority and thus different levels of influence and importance. Table 4.5. illustrates roles of stakeholders in Ho municipality. It is therefore important to consider when and how to engage them during the planning and implementation processes.
65
Table 4.5 Roles of stakeholders in the faecal sludge service chain
Stakeholders Storage Emptying and Transportation Treatment Disposal/Reuse
Households/ Farmers Working Construct household toilets Call for services of cesspit emptier Payment of Sanitation tax (just a few) Payment for emptying
Not Working Dependent on public toilet Emptying frequency often very low Use of untreated faecal Construction of low standard pits Manual emptying sludge in the farm Nonpayment of sanitation taxes (majority) Non degradable materials in pits Informal settlements Non affordability of high emptying fees Ministry/HMA/ Regional Dept. Working Formulate sanitation bye-laws Collection of emptying fees Designated disposal site Collection of sanitation taxes Provision of cesspit emptier Policies and regulations Not working Lack of enforcement of bye laws Long distance to disposal sites Lack of treatment Disposal sites not properly Lack of supervision of pits Poor maintenance of cesspit emptier facilities acquired Misappropriation of funds Lack of suitable incentive for workers No discharge standards Reuse standards or guidelines Lack of urban planning resulting in slums Discharge standards or pertaining to faecal sludge are Poor awareness creation guidelines pertaining to nonexistence Low political will in faecal sludge faecal sludge treatment management are nonexistence Private Entrepreneur (driver) Working Empty and transport the faecal sludge Long hose through other houses to Discharge the faecal sludge at from the pit reach the facility. the designated site Not working Lack of access to the facilities High capital cost of cesspit emptier Location too far Solidified sludge Expensive spare parts Bad roads Nondegradable materials in the pit Bad roads leading to the facilities
66
4.5 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
The roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder identified are clearly defined and assigned below. Figure 4.5. represents the breakdown of the activities to be performed by each stakeholder.
Figure 4.5. Roles and responsibilities of stakeholder identified
4.5.1 Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
The MLGRD which represents the government in terms of sanitation related issues is responsible for facilitating the mobilization of funds for sector plans and programs. The
Ministry will also budget and release substantial amount of funds towards faecal sludge management programs. Formulation of national sanitation policies especially for faecal sludge management will also be a mandate of the Ministry. The Ministry will be responsible for coordinating the monitoring and evaluation of the sanitation policies. Also the Ministry will promulgate the national legislation and model bye-laws on faecal sludge management.
67
They will be tasked to establish national legislation on faecal sludge discharge requirements and product quality. The ministry is to set legislation to free private entrepreneurs in the faecal sludge collection business from taxes on imported goods such as cesspit emptier and their spare parts. Regulations on faecal sludge pit emptying, transport and discharge is also their responsibility.
4.5.2 Regional departments and offices
The regional departments and offices will disseminate the legislation and model bye- laws on sanitation especially on faecal sludge management. They will enforce the sanitation bye-laws and regulations. Provision of standard guidelines for the construction of sanitation facilities will be done by the regional departments and offices for uniformity in all the sanitation facilities. Provision of sanitation facilities will be facilitated by the regional departments and offices. Promotion of health and hygiene education will also be done by the regional departments and offices.
4.5.3 Ho Municipal Assembly
The Ho Municipal Assembly is responsible for collection and management of sanitation taxes from the households. The assembly is to request and /or acquire land from the traditional leaders or elsewhere for the construction of the treatment plant.
Designing and supervision of construction of standard pits is a role to be played by the Assembly. Enforcement of sanitation bye-laws to prosecute sanitation defaulter will be carried by the Assembly. The treatment plant will be the sole responsibility of the assembly to manage in terms of funds, capacity building, staff recruitment, tariff setting, etc. Also they are to monitor and evaluate the performance of the treatment plant. The Assembly is to encourage the household to build their own toilet facilities
68 according to the standard pit design. Awareness creation about the benefits of faecal sludge management is to be established by the assembly. The Assembly is to provide new public toilets at vantage points at densely populated areas such as markets and lorry parks. The Assembly is responsible for contracting private entrepreneurs to manage the commercialized public toilets. The Assembly is responsible for releasing funds towards faecal sludge management activities.
Planning of new settlement and provision of access roads is the responsibility of the municipal assembly.
4.5.4 NGOs and Donors
NGOs and Donors interested in faecal sludge management will play the role of capacity building of assembly staff. Provision of funds for faecal sludge infrastructural development will be tasked to the donors and NGOs. In return the assembly will be responsible to update the donors and NGOs by submitting progress reports on any faecal sludge infrastructural development activities they are carrying out. They will be responsible for public awareness creation about faecal sludge management through education.
4.5.5 Households
The individual households will be responsible for building their own toilet facilities according to the standards that the assembly will provide. Households will be responsible for payment of sanitation taxes to the assembly. Households will also be responsible for paying the cesspit emptier driver for desludging. The households will observe the recommended desludging interval of 1yr – 3yr to avoid the hardening of the sludge which will in turn stop manual faecal sludge emptying. The households
69 will be tasked to form community based organizations which will be interested in faecal sludge management. The households will be responsible for reporting anybody doing the wrong thing i.e. defecating in the open, manual emptying.
4.5.6 Private entrepreneur (cesspit emptier driver and mason)
The private entrepreneurs in the faecal sludge management business are the cesspit emptier driver and the drivers. The drivers after desludging, are mandated to send it to the treatment plant and pay the recommended tariff to the plant operator. The drivers are responsible for the maintenance of their vehicles and they are to make sure the vehicles are always available for the business. The cost of desludging should be moderate and are to be paid in installments to encourage the households to call for their services. The masons are mandated to follow the standard pit design provided by the municipal assembly during the construction of toilet facilities. The use of local materials for latrine construction is the role of the mason. The charge for the construction of toilet facilities should be moderate.
4.5.7 Treatment plant operator
The treatment plant is the heart of the faecal sludge management. The operator is responsible for operating and maintaining the treatment plant to the desired capacity.
The operator is responsible for treating the sludge to the required quality to be handled by farmers and leachate to the discharge standards to be set by EPA before discharging it into the environment. When the cesspit emptier drivers send the faecal sludge to the treatment plant, it is the responsibility of the operator to receive it. The operator is responsible for selling the treated sludge to farmers at the approved price.
70
4.5.8 Banks
The banks are obliged to loan money to people in the faecal sludge management at affordable interest rates and without collateral. The banks are to give flexible payments terms to people who want loan for construction of toilet facilities as well as the entrepreneurs in the faecal sludge management. The banks should get interested in the faecal sludge management and take it as their cooperate responsibility.
4.5.9 Traditional leaders
The traditional leaders who are the land owners are responsible for assisting the assembly in land acquisition for the treatment plant. The traditional leaders are responsible for creating awareness among the people about the benefit of faecal sludge management. Also the traditional leaders are tasked to enforce sanitation bye- laws. The traditional leaders are obliged to preserve the cultural values of the people.
4.5.10 Farmers
The farmers are responsible for buying and using the treated sludge for their farms.
They are to pay for the sludge at the recommended price to the operator of the treatment plant. Farmers who are already using untreated faecal sludge for their farms are obliged to stop. The farmers are responsible for reporting anybody doing the wrong thing that is using untreated faecal sludge in their farms.
71
4.6 Strategies for Cost Recovery
The cost recovery strategy to keep the treatment plant running is presented in Figure
4.6. The various components of the faecal sludge management service chain were linked up in an interactive manner. The assembly will receive sanitation tax from households and as well as registration fees from private entrepreneurs in the sludge business. Households are expected to pay for the services of the cesspit emptier and at the discharge point they can also pay a discharge fee to the operator of the treatment plant. The operator will receive payment from farmers after buying the treated sludge. The Ho municipal Assembly will coordinate all financial responsibilities of the treatment plant. Together with the assembly‟s own budget support, the funds will be injected into the activities of the treatment plant.
Household Faecal Use/ sanitation Sludge Emptying Transport Treatment application technology Flow
Financial Flow Households Private enterprise Public Utility Farmers
Emptying Discharge Purchase fee fee price
Budget support
Registration fee HMA
Sanitation tax
Figure 4.6. Financial model for the faecal sludge management
72
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusions
Ho Municipal Assembly relies solely on on-site technologies to address the sanitation needs of the people. Currently there are many sanitation problems associated with the management of the faecal sludge generated from these on-site facilities. The present faecal sludge management was accessed and the following conclusions were drawn:
8.5% - 15% of the people in the study communities within Ho municipality
still lack basic sanitation and therefore were engaged in open defaecation and,
80% of the population is dependent on public toilets. 59.3% of the
respondents in Ho Township have their own household toilets.
The study revealed that there was no faecal sludge treatment facility in the Ho
municipality but there were two disposal sites where the faecal sludge is
discharged untreated into the environment.
To improve the faecal sludge management crisis in Ho municipality the target
was to deliver all the faecal sludge generated to a treatment plant. The study
evaluated unplanted drying beds, planted drying beds, co-composting, waste
stabilization ponds and anaerobic digestion with biogas and selected 30
unplanted drying beds each with size 25 m2 x 30 m2 to be the suitable
treatment option for the faecal sludge.
There were no clear definitions of roles and responsibilities among the
sanitation stakeholders in the municipality. Households, governmental
departments, private entrepreneurs, treatment plant operator, traditional
73
leaders, NGOs, farmers and banks were identified as the key players in the
faecal sludge management, each with specified roles and responsibilities
assigned. To ensure effective faecal sludge management system, it is
important that all stakeholders are involved in the faecal sludge management
from the planning stage to the implementation stage. To make the system
viable a financial model was developed for the smooth running of the faecal
sludge management.
5.2 Recommendations
Based on the above conclusion, the following recommendations are given:
The Ho municipal assembly should revise the sanitation bye-laws to include
issues on faecal sludge management and gazette it for use as an enforcement
tool.
The Ho municipal assembly should engage all stakeholders identified for the
faecal sludge management from the planning to the implementation phases
clearly spelling their roles and responsibilities.
Farmers should be encouraged to consider the treated faecal sludge as a
potential resource which can be safely reused in their farms as soil
conditioner.
Further research should be conducted on how to improve on the operation
and maintenance of the components in the faecal sludge management service
chain.
74
REFERENCES
Adubofour, K., Obiri-Danso, K. and Quansah, C. (2012). Sanitation survey of two urban slum Muslim communities in the Kumasi metropolis, Ghana. Environ. Urban. 25 (1): pp. 1–19.
Alcantara, A.N. (2002). Population Projections Without Trying. Data Users Conference.
Al-Sa‟ed, R.M.Y. and Hithnawi, T.M. (2006). Domestic septage characteristics and co-treatment impacts of Albireh wastewater treatment plant efficiency. Dirasat Engineering Sciences 33(2): pp.187–197.
Antwi-Agyei, P., Awuah, E. and Oduro Kwarteng, S. (2009). 018530 SWITCH Sustainable Water Management in the City of the Future. Faecal Sludge Management : The Case of Madina. MSc. Thesis for KNUST. Intergrated Proj. Glob. Chang. Ecosyst: pp. 49–68.
Arthur, R. and Baidoo, M.F. (2011). Biogas generation from sewage in four public universities in Ghana: A solution to potential health risk. Biomass and Bioenergy 35(7): pp.3086–3093.
Chowdry, S. and Kone, D. (2012). Business Analysis of Fecal Sludge Management: Emptying and Transportation Services in Africa and Asia: pp 10–50.
Cofie, O., Adeoti, A., Nkansah-Boadu, F. and Awuah, E. (2010). Farmers perception and economic benefits of excreta use in southern Ghana. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55: pp. 161–166.
Cofie, O., Kone, D., Rothenberger, S., Moser, D. and Zubruegg, C. (2009). Co- composting of faecal sludge and organic solid waste for agriculture: Process dynamics. Water Res. 43: pp 4665–4675.
Cofie, O., Agbottah, S., Strauss, M., Esseku, H., Montangero, A., Awuah, E. and Kone, D. (2006). Solid-liquid separation of faecal sludge using drying beds in Ghana: Implications for nutrient recycling in urban agriculture. Water Res. 40: pp. 75–82.
Diener, S., Semiyaga, S., Niwagaba, C.B., Muspratt, A.M., Gning, J.B., Mbéguéré, M., Ennin, J.E., Zurbrugg, C. and Strande, L. (2014). A value proposition: Resource recovery from faecal sludge - Can it be the driver for improved sanitation? Resources Conservation & Recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 88: pp. 32–38.
Drechsel, P. (2009). Wastewater Irrigation and Public Health: From Research to Impact-A Road Map for Ghana. Accra, Ghana: pp. 1– 38.
Franceys, R., Pickford, J. and Reed, R. (1992). A Guide to the Development of On- Site Sanitation: WHO Library in Publication Data. ISN 92 4 1454443 0: pp. 33–57.
75
Gao, X.Z., Shen, T., Zheng, Y., Sun, X., Huang, S., Ren, Q., Zhang, X., Tian, Y. and Luan, G. (2002). Practical manure handbook. Chinese Agricultural Publishing House. Beijing, China. In: WHO. 2006. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta and greywater. Volume 4. Excreta and greywater use in agriculture. ISBN 92 4 154685 9.
Garde, P. and Koné, D. (2007). Fecal Sludge Management in Africa and Asia. saniblog.org/2012/12/04/fecal-sludge-management-in-africa-and-asia/. (Accessed 18 May 2015).
Gaulke, L. and Johkasou, S. (2006). On-site Wastewater Treatment and Reuses in Japan. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers - Water Management. Proc. ICE - Water Manag. 159 (2): pp 103–109.
GSS. (2013). Ghana Statistical Service. 2010 Population and Housing Census. Regional Analytical Report, Volta Region.
GSS. (2014). Ghana Statistical Service. 2010 Population & Housing Census: District Analytical Report, Ho Municipality: pp. 58– 59.
GNA. (2014). Ghana Review International- the leading Ghanain News Agency. http://www.ghanareview.com/NEW/index2.php?offset=40&class=News&id=61415 &date=2014-08-25. (Accessed May 18, 2015).
Gold, B.M. and Strande, L. (2014). Faecal sludge to fuel : revenue to improve sanitation services: pp. 1–7.
Gyamfi, T.A. (2011). Feasibility of wastewater reuse for aquaculture: Case study of the Ahensan waste stabilisation pond for Afrikan Catfish production: pp. 2.
Harvey, P., Baghri, S. and Reed, B. (2002). Emergency Sanitation: Assessment and Programme Design. Water, Engineering and Development Center, Loughborough University, UK: pp. 57– 104.
Heinss, U., Larmie, S. A and Strauss, M. (1999). Characteristics of Faecal Sludges and their Solids-Liquid Separation. SOS- Management of Sludges From On-site Sanitation. EAWAG/SANDEC. SOS - Manag. Sludges from On-Site Sanit: pp. 10.
Heinss, U., Larmie, S.A. and Strauss, M. (1998). Solids Separation and Pond Systems for the Treatment of Faecal Sludges in the Tropics. Lessons learnt and recommendations for preliminary design. SANDEC Report No. 5/98. Second Edition. Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science ad Technology (EAWAG).
Hemkendreis, B., Henseler, M. and Güdel, K. (2014). Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) Sandec Training Tool 1.0 – Module 5: pp. 1–35.
Ingallinella, A.M., Sanguinetti, G., Fernandez, R.G., Strauss, M. and Montangero, A. (2002). Cotreatment of sewage and septage in waste stabilization ponds. Water Science and Technology. 45: pp. 9–15.
76
Ingallinella, A.M., Sanguinetti, G., Koottatep, T., Montangero, A. and Strauss, M., (2002). The challenge of faecal sludge management in urban areas - Strategies, regulations and treatment options. Water Science. Technology. 46 : pp. 285–294.
Jeuland, M., Koné, D. and Strauss, M. (2004). Private Sector Management of Fecal Sludge: A Model for the Future? Focus on an innovative planning experience in Bamako, Mali. EAWAG, Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Jindal, A., Majumder, R.K., Bhattacharya, P., Priyanie, A., Raman, R., Jain, S.and Ravikumar, J. (2015). Septage Management : An option for improved sanitation in Tripura.
Jönsson, H., Baky, A., Jeppsoon, U., Hellström, D. and Kärrman, E. (2005). Composition of urine, faeces, greywater and biowaste for utilization in the URWARE model. Urban water Report of the MISTRA Programme, Report 2005: 6, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. Available at: www.urbanwater.org.(Accessed May 15, 2015)
Kengne, E.S., Kengne, I.M., Nzouebet, W.A.L., Akoa, A., Viet, H.N. and Strande, L. (2014). Performance of vertical flow constructed wetlands for faecal sludge drying bed leachate: Effect of hydraulic loading. Ecol. Eng, 71: pp. 384–393.
Klingel, F., Montangero, A., Koné, D. and Strauss, M. (2002). Fecal Sludge Management in Developing Countries A planning manual. First edition EAWAG: Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology SANDEC: Department for Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries: pp. 1–55.
Klingel, F., Montangero, A., Strauss, M. and Sandec, E., (2001). Nam Dinh – Planning for Improved Faecal Sludge Management and Treatment. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Water Supply & Sewerage Association of Vietnam, Dec. 6-7, 2001: pp. 1–8.
Koné, D., Cofie, O. and Nelson, K. (2010). Low-Cost Options for Pathogen Reduction and Nutrient Recovery from Faecal Sludge. wastewater Irrig: pp. 1–18.
Koné, D. and Strauss, M. (2004). Low-Cost Options for Treating Faecal Sludges (FS) in Developing Countries – Challenges and Performance. Paper presented to the 9th International IWA Specialist group conference on wetlands systems for water pollution control: pp.1–7.
Koné, D., Strauss, M. and Saywell, D. (2006). Towards an Improved Faecal Sludge Management ( FSM ): Proceedings of The First International Symposium and Workshop on Faecal Sludge Management Policy. Dakar, Senegal: pp. 9 – 12.
Koottatep, T. (2014). Practical handbook on Technical Assessment and Planning Guidelines for Fecal Sludge Management. Pathumthani, Thailand: AIT.
Koottatep, T., Polprasert, C., Thi Kim Oanh, N., Montangero, A. and Strauss, M. (2001). Sludges from On-site Sanitation Systems – Low-cost Treatment Alternatives.
77
Paper presented at the IWA conference on water & sanitation management for developing countries. Kuala Lumpur, Oct. 29-31: pp. 1–10.
L uthi, C. (2014). Urban Environmental Sanitation Planning : Water Supply: pp. 15– 16.
Koottatep, T., Surinkul, N., Polprasert, C., Kamal, A.S.M., D., K., Montangero, A., Heinss, U. and Strauss, M. (2005). Treatment of septage in constructed wetlands in tropical climate: lessons learnt from seven years of operation. Water Science & Technology Vol 51(9): pp. 119–126.
MESSAP (2012). Municipal Environmental Sanitation Strategy and Action Plan for Ho Municipal Assembly.
Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (2001). Environmental Sanitation Policy. Development.
Montangero, A., Koné, D. and Strauss, M. (2002). Planning Towards Improved Excreta Management. In: Proceedings, 5th IWA Conference on Small Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems, Istanbul, Turkey, Sept: pp. 24-26.
Montangero, A. and Strauss, M. (2002). Faecal Sludge Treatment. Eawag/Sandec. www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_ewm/do wnloads_ewm/IHE_lecture_notes.pdf: pp. 31–32.
Mulenga, M. (2014). A General Approach to FSM Planning: IHE Lecture note. Faecal Sludge Management. Module 11: pp. 1–9.
Müller, C. (2007). Anaerobic Digestion of Biodegradable Solid Waste in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
Muller, M. and Rijnsburger, J. (1994). Manual Pit Latrine Emptying Technology Project (MAPET) Dar es Salaam, TANZANIA Dar es Salaam Sewerage & Sanitation Department (DSSD) & WASTE consultants.
Muspratt, M.A., Nakato, T., Niwagabe, C., Dione, H., Stupin, L., Regulinski, I., Mbéguéré, M. and Strande, L. (2014). Fuel potential of feacal sludge: calorific value results from Uganda, Ghana, and Senegal. Journal of Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Developing Countries.
Murungi, C. and Van Dijk, M.P. (2014). Emptying, Transportation and Disposal of feacal sludge in informal settlements of Kampala Uganda: The economics of sanitation. Habitat International 42: pp. 69–75.
Nguyen, V. (2015). Efforts in Fecal Sludge Management and Sanitation Improvement in Vietnam: pp.19–23.
Nkansah, A. (2009). Management of FS in the urban areas of low-income countries : a case of Tamale , Ghana. A PhD Thesis, WEDC University of Loughborough, UK: pp. 45-50
78
NWSC. (2008). National Water and Sewerage Corporation. Kampala Sanitation Program (KSP) - Feasibility study for sanitation master in Kampala, Uganda.
Owusu-Bennoah, E. and Visker, C. (1994). Organic wastes hijacked. ELEIA Newsletter, 10(3): pp. 12–13.
Pandey, R.A. and Kaul, S.N. (2000). Status of domestic wastewater management in relation to drinking-water supply in two states of India. Schriftenreihe des Vereins fur Wasser-, Boden- und Lufthygiene Vol.105: pp. 405–411.
Parkinson, J. and Tayler, K. (2003). Decentralized wastewater management in peri- urban areas in low-income countries. Environment and Urbanization.,Vol 15,No.1 : pp. 75–90.
Pisa, P., Pisa, V.V., Romanpisa, S., Stackstone, D., Durahold, S.D., Split, R., Durahold, S. and Sienastone, S.R. (2004). Waste Stabilisation Pond Design Manual ®. Power and Water Corporation.
Schoebitz, L., Bassan, M., Ferré, A., Vu, T.H. a, Nguyen, V. A. and Strande, L. (2014). FAQ: faecal sludge quantification and characterization – field trial of methodology in Hanoi, Vietnam. Sustainable Water and Sanitation Services for All In A Fast Changing World. 37th WEDC International Conference Hanoi, Viet: pp. 1–6.
SHW-Guide. (2015). Worldbank Group (http://water.worldbank.org/shw-resource- guide/glossary#F (Accessed May, 18 2015).
Siregar, R. (2014). On-site Sanitation Systems and Willingness – to-Pay for Emptying in Urban Areas in Indonesia From Applied Research to Pilots … then to National Program ? 3rd International Faecal Sludge Management Conference: pp. 1- 15
Steiner, M., Montangero, A., Koné, D. and Strauss, M. (2002). Economic Aspect of Low-cost Faecal Sludge Management – Estimation of Collection, Haulage, Treatment and Disposal/Reuse Cost.
Steiner, M., Montangero, A., Koné, D. and Strauss, M. (2003). Towards More Sustainable Faecal Sludge Management Through Innovative Financing Selected Money Flow Options. EAWAG/SANDEC, draft under review: pp. 26.
Still, D. and Taylor, C. (2011). What Happens When the Pit is Full: pp. 29–32.
Strande, L., Ronteltap, M. and Brdjanovic, D. (2014). Faecal Sludge Management. Systems Approach for Implementation and Operation: Published by IWA Publishing.
Strauss, M., Barreiro, W.C., Steiner, M., Mensah, A., Jeuland, M., Bolomey, S., Montangero, A. and Consultant, S. (2003). Urban excreta management - situation, challenges, and promising solutions. Water and Sanitation in Developing Countries. Water Sanit. Dev. Ctries: pp. 1–9.
79
Strauss, M., Larmie, S. and Heinss, U. (1997). Treatment of sludges from on-site sanitation Lowcost options.
Strauss, M., Larmie, S.A., Helnss, U. and Montangero, A. (2000). Treating faecal sludges in ponds. Water Sci. Technol. 42: pp. 283–290.
Strauss, M. and Montangero, A. (2000). On-Site Sanitation: When the Pits are Full – Planning for Resource Protection in Faecal Sludge Management.
Strauss, M. and Montangero, A. (2002). Faecal Sludge Management: Review of Practices Problems and Inititatives. Capacity Building for Effective Decentralised Wastewater Management: pp. 14 - 20.
Thye, Y.P., Templeton, M.R. and Ali, M. (2009). Pit Latrine Emptying: Technologies, Challenges and Solutions. EWB-UK Res. Conf. 2009: pp 10.
Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Luethi, C., Reymond, P. and Zurbruegg, C. (2014). Human powered emptying and transport.
UN. ( 2007). United Nations:The Millennium Development Goals Report 2007.
UNICEF and WHO. (2008). World Health Organization and United Nations Children‟s Fund Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Suply and sanitation (JMP). Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation. Special Focus on Sanitation. UNICEF, New York and WHO, Geneva,2008: WHO Library Catalo pp. 1–58.
UNICEF and WHO (2014). Progress on Drinking -Water and Sanitation 2014. Country, Area, or Territory Estimates on Sanitation and Drrinking -Water: 2014 Update: pp 9.
Von Sperling, M. and Fattal, B. (2001). Implementation of Guidelines- Practical Aspects for developing Countries. Water Quality- Guidelines, Standards and Health. Assessment of Risk and Mnagement of Water Related Infectious Disease. pp. 370.
Weemaes, M. and Verstraete, W. (2001). Other treatment techniques. Sludge into Biosolids – Processing, Disposal, Utilization. Edited by L. Spinosa and P. A. Vesilind. IWA Publishing, United Kingdom.
80
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Detailed calculations of estimation of sludge production
Base year: 2015
Design period: 10 years
Population as at 2010: 271,881
Population Growth rate: 1.17 %
n Geometric formula Pn = Po (1+r)
5 Projected Population at 2015, P15 = 271881 (1+1.17%) = 288,163
10 Projected Population at 2025 P25 = 288163(1+ 1.17%) = 323,710
Land Area: 2,361 square kilometers
Persons per household: 4 persons
Sludge accumulation rate 60 l/cap/yr was used.
Sludge Production = 58,268 m3
58,268/52 = 1,120.53 m3/week ~ 1,125 m3/week
Assuming the truck works for 5 days ie from Monday to Friday.
Volume of faecal sludge to be collected per day by the vacuum truck = 1,125/5
= 225 m3/day.
81
Appendix B: Detailed calculation of estimation of number of drying beds
The total annual mass of sludge received can be calculated from the equation below.
M = ci . Qi . t ……………….eqn 4.1
The M is the annual mass of the sludge in kg TS/year, ci is the average total solids concentration in the sludge arriving at the plant in mg TS/L, Qi is the flow in m3 per delivery day, and t is the number of delivery days per year.
Therefore the annual sludge mass is calculated as
M = 3,568,500 kg TS/yr
82
Appendix C: List of Plates
Plate C.1. A defaulting tenant explaining to EHA
Plate C.2. A soak away pit full and leaching into the environment (Owner: tenant above)
83
Plate C.3. Children fetching water from a stream close to the scene above
Plate C.4. Other solid wastes thrown into the stream
84
Plate C.5. Cracks in a slab cover
Plate C.6. Long hose to enable access to the on-site facility
85
Plate C.7. Workers of the HMA desludging a pit
Plate C.8. There is a hole connecting the two pits
86
Plate C.9. Pits get full to the brim before they are desludge
Plate C.10. Pits get full to the brim before they are desludge
87
Plate C.11. Example of public pit latrine in Matse
Plate C.12. VIP toilet in Hodzo Aviepe
88
Plate C.13. Example of Public WC toilet in Ziavi Dzogbe
Plate C.14. Inside of the toilet structure in plate C.13.
89
Plate C.15. A plan land use as a disposal site at Tsito
Plate C.16. Disposal site at Sokode Ando
90
Plate C.17. A truck discharging at the disposal site at Tsito
Plate C.18. Solidified sludge in a septic tank
91
Plate C.19. The old cesspit emptier belonging to HMA
92
Appendix D: Sample questionnaires
Household Questionnaires for Assessing Faecal Sludge management practices in Ho Municipality
Dear Respondent, I am a postgraduate student of KNUST conducting a study on faecal sludge management practices in the Ho municipality. I would be grateful for your support in my data collection and your confidentially is assured in this academic exercise. Thank you.
Informed consent: Do you agree to participate in the survey? (1) Yes (2) No
NAME OF DATE COMMUNITY
Socio economic data
Q1. Age of respondent
Q2. Gender of respondent
Male 1
Female 2
Q3. What is the educational level of respondent?
No education 1
Primary 2
Technical/ Vocational 3
93
Secondary 4
Tertiary 5
Q4 What is the household size of the respondent
Q5. What is the main source of income of the respondent?
Unemployed 1
Self employed 2
Formal employment 3
Contract employment 4
Hygiene and Sanitation
Q6. What type of toilet do you use?
Flush toilets 1
KVIP 2
VIP 3
Pit Latrine 4
Bucket/Pan 5
Others 6
Open Defecation 7
Q7. What type of anal cleansing material is used?
94
Water 1
Toilet rolls 2
Cement paper/ Graphic 3
Corn harks 4
Others 5
Q8. When the containment structure is full how is it emptied?
Manual emptying 1
Mechanical empting 2
Others (Specify) 3
Q9. What is the frequency of emptying the pit?
Twice in a year 1
Once every year 2
Once every 2 years 3
Once every 3 years 4
Others 5
Q10. Is the rate of filling affected by the seasonal changes?
Yes 1
No 2
Q11. How much does it cost to empty the pit? GHC ......
95
Q12. Is this cost affordable to the household?
Yes 1
No 2
Q13. How long does it take you to get the services of truck providers?
Q14. Is the household willing to pay for the emptying services?
Yes 1
No 2
Q15. Do you think the services of the truck providers are good or they need improvement?
Yes 1
No 2
Q16. How do you dispose water use in washing, bathing and kitchen ?
In the septic tank 1
Thrown in the drain 2
Poured on the compound 3
Q17. How do you handle waste generated in the house?
Collected by service provider 1
96
Burned after gathering 2
Hipped at one place 3
Others ( Specify) 4
Q19. What is the main source of domestic water?
Pipe borne water 1
Borehole 2
Stream/lake/river 3
Others 4
Q20. Would you buy farm produce which were cultivated with treated faecal sludge?
Yes 1
No 2
97
Questionnaires For Assessing Faecal Sludge management practices in Ho Municipality
Dear Respondent, I am a postgraduate student of KNUST conducting a study on faecal sludge management practices in the Ho municipality. I would be grateful for your support in my data collection and your confidentially is assured in this academic exercise. Thank you.
Informed consent: Do you agree to participate in the survey? (1) Yes (2) No
Name of Participant DATE
Questionnaires for Municipal Authorities
Q1. How important is sanitation in general to the Municipal Authorities?
Very important 1
Important 2
I do not know 3
Not important 4
Q2.How important is FSM to the Municipal Authorities?
Very important 1
Important 2
I do not know 3
Not important 4
Q3. What type of faecal sludge infrastructure exists in HMA eg sewer networks, treatment units, disposal sites etc?
98
Q4. Does the HMA own Cesspit emptier? If yes how many do they have?
Q5. How are the trucks managed?
Q6. Do private cesspit operators exist in the municipality? Yes/No
Q7. If yes to Q 6. How are they regulated?
Q8. Is there manual cesspit emptier within the municipality?
Q9. Who are the other Governmental and non Governmental bodies involved in sanitation issues in HMA?
Q10. What is the collaboration of the HMA with these organizations?
Q11. How are you promoting access to improved sanitation?
Q12. How is sanitation concerning faecal sludge issues are funded by HMA?
Q13. Does the HMA collect levy from the households for sanitation purposes?
Q15. How effective is the bye-law on sanitation in HMA
Q16. How are you able to ensure compliance of the law?
Questionnaires for municipal technicians (Mechanic)
Q1. Who is in charge of the faecal sludge collection in the municipality?
99
Q2. How many of you are assigned to work with one cesspit emptier?
Q3. How many cesspits emptier do you have?
Q4. What are the sizes of the tanks?
Q5. What other tools do they have? Eg gulper Mapet etc
Q6. What type of latrines do you mostly empty?
Q7. Do you get access to all the houses?
Q8. If not, what do you do?
Q9. Is your work affected by seasonal variations?
Q10. How many disposal sites do you have?
Q11. What is the frequency of the trucks to the disposal site per a week?
Q12. Is there a treatment unit for the sludge?
Q13. Are there any challenges pertaining to your work?
Q14. Is there any reuse opportunity of the sludge?
Q15. Will farmers be willing to use the sludge as fertilizers?
100
Q16. What will be the reaction of the public to the use of the sludge as a fertilizer?
Tha nk You
101