public water corporationmiwr-gonu mwri-goss...

Technical Guidelines for the Construction and Management of School Latrines

1

Technical Guideline and Manual for Water Supply FacilitiesImproved Hafirs

Public Water Corporation

MIWR-GONU MWRI-GOSS

Technical Guidelinesfor the Construction and Management of

School Latrines

A Manual for Field Staff and PractitionersApril 2009

Developed in partnership with


2

Technical Guidelinesfor the Construction and Management of

School Latrines

A Manual for Field Staff and PractitionersApril 2009


3

Table of Contents

Page NoForeword……………………………………………………………………………..................................................4Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………....................................................6Acronyms........……………………………………………………………………....................................................7

Document Summary 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..................................................111.1 Purpose of this document........................................................................................................................111.2 Available sanitation technology options…………………………………….................................................11

2 General design considerations for on-site sanitation………………………….............................................12

3 Mobilization of stakeholders………………………………………………......................................................13

4 Guideline for selection of school latrines……………………….…………….................................................13

5 School latrines…………………………………………………………………...................................................145.1 Types of school latrines………………………………………………...............................................145.2 Steps in selection of different types of school latrines………….……...........................................15

6 Design and construction of school latrines…………………………….……..................................................166.1 Design and construction………………………………………………..............................................166.1.1 Volume of a pit……………………………………………..............................................................176.1.2 Depth of a pit……………………………………………….............................................................416.1.3 Lining of a pit……………………………………………….............................................................416.1.4 Squatting platform………………………………………….............................................................426.1.5 Superstructure……………………………………………..............................................................436.1.6 Vent pipe…………………………………………………................................................................466.1.7 Urinal………………………………………………………..............................................................46 6.1.8 Hand washing facility……………………………………...............................................................466.1.9 Options in terms of accessing of pits or types of materials of the superstructure.….................476.2 Advantages and disadvantages of different types of school latrines............................................48

7 Management, operation and maintenance of school latrines……….……………........................................49

8 Recommendations………………………………………………………………................................................51

Annexes


4

Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources – Government of National Unity

Foreword

Significant progress has been achieved in the provision of water and sanitation services in Sudan in the last few years. This is attributed to the increased access to many remote villages as a result of the three major peace agreements, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between north and south Sudan, the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) and the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement (ESPA), that were signed in 2005 and 2006 respectively. This access has allowed the Ministries of Irrigation and Water Resource (MIWR) of the Government of National Unity (GoNU), state governments and sector partners (including NGOs and the private sector) to expand water and sanitation services in many areas. This prioritizing of the expansion and sustainability of water and sanitation services in urban and rural areas throughout the county, including to the nomadic population has resulted in a steady annual increase in water and sanitation coverage for the citizens of Sudan.

With this expansion in implementation, the MIWR recognized the need to harmonize the various methodologies utilized by the various actors in the implementation of water and sanitation interventions. It was agreed that this could be best achieved through the development and distribution of Technical Guidelines, outlining best practices for the development of the 14 types of water supply and sanitation facilities in the Sudan. These Technical Guidelines, compiled in a systematic manner will undoubtedly set standards and provide guidance for all water and sanitation sector implementing partners.

The MIWR, GoNU, Sudan is grateful to UNICEF, Sudan for financial and technical support in the preparation of the Technical Guidelines.

I believe these Technical Guidelines will improve WES sector programming, allowing for scaling up implementation of activities towards achieving the MDG goal for water supply and sanitation in Sudan.


5

Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation – Government of Southern Sudan

Foreword

After the historic signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January 2005, which culminated the establishment of an autonomous Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) including the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI). MWRI guided processing of the Southern Sudan Water Policy within the framework of the 2005 Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan (ICSS) and the Interim National Constitution (INC). The Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly (SSLA) of GOSS approved the Water Policy of Southern Sudan in November 2007. Indeed this Water Policy will guide the sector in planning, monitoring and enforcing during implementation. The CPA has enabled the GOSS to focus on the rehabilitation and development of the basic services. Some of the issues that the Water Policy addresses are Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS) and Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (UWSS).

The importance of developing effective water supply and sanitation services is universally recognized as a basis for improving the overall health and productivity of the population, and is particularly important for the welfare of women and children under five. The low coverage of safe drinking water supply and inadequate coverage of basic sanitation facilities and the anticipation of huge demand for these services created by the protracted civil war in the country during the last five decades have put enormous challenges ahead of us. Unrecorded number of IDPs and refugee returnees that have resettled to their traditional homesteads and emerging of new towns in all the ten states have demanded implicit policies, strategies, guidelines and manuals to insure sustainable supply of quality and accessible water and sanitation services.

The timely preparation of the WES technical guidelines manuals at this stage, however, enables us to further develop our strategies and prepare action plans as part of the implementation of the Water Policy. It will also allow us to strengthen existing best practices as well as to test new experiences that will create room for future development.

During the development and finalization of these technical guidelines and manuals for water supply and sanitation facilities, we have consulted our sector partners at GOSS and States levels and non-government agencies through successive consultative meetings at different times. We are thankful to all for their contribution. We recognize that these technical guidelines and manuals are the result of those inputs.

We call upon our WASH sector partners to provide their continuous feedbacks from the field for the improvement of the guidelines and manuals and for our common successful implementation in the WASH sector. We believe that successful implementation will depend on effective coordination among different partners of government and beneficiary communities. Active involvement and close collaboration between them will guarantee future sustainable service provisions.


6

Acknowledgements

Special thanks go to Mr Mohammed Hassan Mahmud Amar, Mr Eisa Mohammed and Mr Mudawi Ibrahim, for their directions on GONU’s sector policy; Engineer Isaac Liabwel, on GOSS’s water policy; Mr Sampath Kumar and Dr. Maxwell Stephen Donkor, for their direction on the WASH sector from the UNICEF perspective, and for the provision of relevant documents & information, and facilitating & organizing a number of forums to discuss draft documents.

The author would also like to thank WES and UNICEF staff of North Darfur, North Kordofan, South Kordofan, Sinnar, Gedaref, Kassala, Red Sea and Blue Nile States; the staff of DRWSS, and UWC in Central Equatoria, Western Bahr el Ghazal, Warap and Upper Nile States; and the staff of UNICEF Zonal Offices responsible for the arrangement of meetings with sector partners and successful field trips to the various facilities.

Thanks are also due to Emmanuel Parmenas, MWRI, and Mr Mohammed Habib and Mr Jemal Al Amin, PWC, for their contribution in collecting documents and information at national and state levels, facilitating field trips and contacting relevant persons at state level. The PWC staff also provided invaluable support in the translation of documents and information from Arabic into English.

The completion of this document would not have been possible without contributions and input from partners from SWC, PWC, MIWR, MCRD, MWRI, and MOH (GONU); MAF, MARF, MOH, MHLE, MWLCT and SSMO (GOSS); UNICEF; National and International NGOs including Oxfam GB, Pact Sudan, SNV, SC-UK, and Medair; review workshop participants at state and national levels; and members of technical working groups.


7

Acronyms

ACU Area Coordination UnitAP Aqua PrivyAPO AssistantProjectOfficerCPA Comprehensive Peace AgreementDG Director GeneralDPA Darfur Peace AgreementESPA Eastern Sudan Peace AgreementFMOH Federal Ministry of HealthGB Great BritainGONU Government of National UnityGOSS Government of Southern SudanGWWD Ground Water and Wadis DepartmentIRC International Rescue CommitteeITPL Improved Traditional Pit LatrineMCRD Ministry of Cooperatives and Rural Development, GOSSMIWR Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources, GONUMWRI Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, GOSSNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNK North KordofanPFL Pour Flush LatrinePO ProjectOfficerPVC PolyvinylchloridePWC Public Water CorporationRHS Rectangular Hollow SteelRWC Rural Water CorporationSanplat Sanitation platformSC Save the ChildrenSMOH State Ministry of HealthSPO SeniorProjectOfficerSWC State Water CorporationTPL Traditional Pit LatrinesUNDP-TAG United Nation Development Program Technical Advisory GroupUNICEF United Nation Children’s FundUSA United States of AmericaVIP Ventilated Improved LatrineWATSAN Water and SanitationWES Water and Environmental SanitationWFP World Food Program


8

Definition of technical terms

Composting The process of converting biodegradable contents of humanexcreta into useful manure or fertilizer.

Human excreta Waste matter discharged from the human body e.g. faeces or urine

Sanitation Conditions or procedures related to the collection and disposal of sewage and garbage. In these Guidelines, this refers to the safe collection and disposal of human excreta.

Squatting slab A slab in the latrine for the facilitation of squatting to relieveexcreta from the body.

Vault Burial chamber. In these Guidelines, this refers to the chamber In ecosan latrines, used for retention and decomposition of faeces


9

Document Summary

This summary provides a brief overview of the document and is only meant as a quick reference to the main norms. Reference to the whole document is advised for accurate implementation.

Norms

Guideline for the selection of the type of school latrine to be constructed

The following basic requirements should be considered

It should be simple in design, construction, operation and maintenance, such that a local semi-skilled •person can construct it.It should be low-cost and should allow, as much as possible, the use of locally available materials.•It should be hygienic (free from bad smell), inaccessible to insects, flies and animals) and should not •contaminate ground water.It should ensure safe disposal of excreta. •It should be culturally acceptable to the users and allow regular service without interruption.•It should provide the minimum requirement of safety and privacy to the students, and it should have the •following basic components:

A platform on which the user can squat to defecate easily and safely. The platform may have a ɶɶsquatting pan or a simple drop hole or a straight pipe. Where it is anticipated that emptying of the pit is possible, a manhole should be provided on the slab.A superstructure for privacy and protection against rain, wind and sun. This can be constructed from ɶɶlocally available affordable materials like red bricks, hollow blocks, mud bricks, stones etc. Stakeholders should decide on the type of material to be used. Care must be taken to ensure that the use of locally available material does not impact negatively on the environment. Vent pipes with fly screens should be provided outside of the superstructure.A substructure (pit) for storage and disposal of excreta. In unstable soil, the pit must be lined with ɶɶlocally available materials like bricks, stones etc.A hand washing facility enabling students to wash their hands regularly with soap, ash or other locally ɶɶavailable materials after using toilets to promote good hygiene practices.

Other points to consider are: Schools are major entry points for behavioural change among youth groups, which have the power to •influence the society. Following the construction of a school larine, the establishment of school hygiene clubs is recommended as an important tool to communicate hygiene messages. The construction of a school latrine should encourage hygiene promotion activities within and outside of the school.The inclusion of hygiene promotion in school curriculums must be advocated at Mahalia, Payam, State •and National levels

Design and constructionOne squatting slab can service 50 boys or 30 girls within a 50m distance from the class rooms. •A minimum space of 0.80m (width) and 1.0m (length) should be provided for every squatting space.•Pits can be rectangular or circular, based on the soil type: circular pits in loose formation and rectangular •pits in hard and stable formation.Another one or two squatting slabs, for teachers and other school employees are recommended. In •co-education schools, latrines for boys and girls should be separated with a minimum distance of 30m, if adequate space is available. Although a minimum distance of 15m is allowed in other countries, in Sudan it is recommended that •


10

pits are located at a minimum distance of 30 to 50 meters away from drinking water sources (tube wells and hand dug wells) depending on soil condition. The distance depends on hydro-geological conditions such as texture of the soil and groundwater depth and flow. When groundwater levels are high or when the soil is too hard to dig, the pit may have to be raised above ground level.Hand washing facilities must be provided beside each latrine. •Latrines in boys’ schools may have urinals.• Appropriate urinals that are culturally acceptable and designed in consultation with the users maybe provided in boys’ schools Urinals in girls toilets must have partition walls.A bin for hygienic disposal of sanitary materials must be provided in every chamber in latrines in girls’ •schools.


11

1. Introduction

The purpose of this document1.1

The Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources (MIWR), GONU, and the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, (MWRI), GOSS, are responsible for the policy and strategy development, coordination, planning, management, monitoring and evaluation of water supply and sanitation facilities in the country. In order to reduce disparities, improve standards, accelerate implementation and to standardise design and costs, the two ministries agreed to harmonize the methodologies utilised in the implementation of WATSAN interventions At present, there are no standardised technical guidelines for WES or other water and sanitation agencies to use as a reference and this is detrimental to the longevity of structures and the sustainability of interventions.

In 2006 MIWR and MWRI decided to develop Technical Guidelines for the construction and management of rural water supply and sanitation facilities. This document is a collation of global and national good practices in water and sanitation. The process leading to the development of these Technical Guidelines is outlined in Annex 1.

These Guidelines are primarily intended as a reference for field staff and practitioners in the water and sanitation sector challenged by situations and conditions in the field. Updating of the Guidelines is recommended biennially; to ensure newer and better practices are incorporated as they are developed/ introduced. Water and sanitation sector implementing partners are requested to provide feedback to the MIWR and MWRI during the updating process.

Available sanitation technology options1.2

Sanitation systems worldwide can be classified into two major categories, namely: off-site and on-site sanitation systems. The conventional sewerage system with proper treatment and disposal, and small-bore sewers are classified as off-site sanitation systems whilst, others such as dry pit latrines, borehole latrines, ventilated improved pit latrines, eco-san latrines, pour-flush latrines (with single or twin pits), aqua privies, composting latrines (like eco-sans), and septic tanks fall under on-site sanitation systems. The off-site systems are not suitable in peri-urban and rural areas of developing countries like Sudan for the reasons indicated below:

A Conventional sewerage system is highly capital intensive and beyond the financial resources of the •communities in developing countries and particularly for scattered and small populations. It also involves sophisticated treatment systems and skilled operators for management, operation and maintenance and a large quantity of water is wasted in flushing toilets. In rural areas, where the density of the population is relatively low and houses are scattered and at great distances, the cost of a conventional sewerage system is neither cost effective nor sustainable.Small-bore sewers are cheaper than conventional sewerage systems. They have been constructed in •few places but have not been very successful and replicated. The main requirement is that the sewage should not contain settle-able solids, which have to be arrested in intercepting tanks that are provided at individual dwellings. The intercepting tanks have to be cleaned at short intervals. In practice, it is very difficult to ensure such regular attention and the system can get choked and fail to function properly. The effluent has to be treated before it can be disposed off on land or into a water source. As the cost of treatment is high, small-bore sewers are also considered unsuitable for rural areas.Appropriate low cost on-site sanitation technologies which are affordable, hygienic, culturally acceptable, •environmentally friendly and sustainable are the best option for rural areas in developing countries like Sudan.


12

2 General design considerations for on-site sanitation

“On-site sanitation can be defined as a system where human excreta are retained and treated on the site of defecation in a way that is hygienic and does not adversely affect the environment.”1

To ensure the establishment of a successful system, the following factors should be considered by all stakeholders in the planning and designing of on-site sanitation facilities.

Affordability: Without compromising the basic and minimum requirement of health and environmental •protection, and the engineering aspect, affordability of the system should be a priority for the school. To promote low-cost sanitation, local authorities must have a choice regarding material, construction and type of superstructure depending on their financial capacity.Aesthetics: The system should be such that it is free from smell, flies and other insects. The superstructure •should provide the minimum amount of privacy required, especially for the female students. The disposal system must be designed so that it does not create any environmental nuisance by way of vector breeding or water logging, nor foul the environment with bad odours.Social customs and habits: If water is used for anal cleansing a pan with a water seal should be suitable, •otherwise the seat does not need a water seal. Many cultures consider human excreta as a dangerous and unpleasant waste product and will not handle it even when it is fully decomposed. A final disposal system like a pit latrine would be suitable in this case.Soil conditions: The soil should act both as a seepage system for the liquid and also as a filtering •media for the removal of pathogens. The soil absorption system should also allow for minimum liquid residence time before it reaches a water source. In well consolidated and aggregated fine sand and clay, a vertical layer of about 0.7m would trap most pathogenic microorganisms. If there is doubt of the possibility of pollution of the ground water, the pits must be made water tight. This is achieved by adding an impermeable envelope at the bottom and around the lining of the pit. Therefore a minimum 0.7m vertical layer should be secured between the bottom of the pit and ground water level in these types of soils.Contamination of ground water: If the soakage or leach pit is constructed close to an underground •source of water such as a hand pump or well, minimum distance of at least 50m must be maintained between the pit and the water source so that the bacteria are not able to travel to the water source and contaminate it. In porous soil of fine sand and clay, the ground water velocity would depend on hydraulic gradient and pore size. In fine sand (<0.2mm) and hydraulic gradient <0.01, the velocity would be <1m/day. Given that bacterial survival time is 10 days, a separation limit of 10m would be adequate for such hydrogeological conditions. However, situation specific requirements are recommended for adverse hydrogeological situations. If soil strata is rocky but fissured or the soil is too porous (coarse sand, limestone formations, etc) a sand envelope should be provided around the pit. Otherwise faeces need to be composted in water-tight compartments.Water logging: Where the area gets water logged the platform and pits should be constructed slightly •above the ground to create a mound around them.Limited availability of water: Where water is used for anal cleansing, hand flushing of the excreta/urine •using a small portable water container may be practiced as it uses less amount of water than proper water flushing. Where the use of paper and other materials is an option for anal cleansing, this should be encouraged with proper disposal arrangements to check undesirable smells and breeding of flies and insects.Sustainability: Maintenance of facilities/replacement is a critical factor for the sustainability of the facility. •Badly maintained sanitation facilities often cause an even bigger health risk than scattered defecation. It is therefore, very important to identify and agree up on the responsibilities relating to the maintenance/replacement of the facilities at the planning stage. Monitoring should be continued after the facilities are in place. In addition, the sustainability of the facility will be affected if hygiene education is not integrated with the establishment of the facilities.

1 World Health Organization


13

Reference: Further information or clarification can be obtained from to the WES Coordination Office at •the PWC, GONU or DRWSS, GOSS and WES Project Offices of the SWC in North Sudan or state MPI in Southern Sudan.

3 Mobilization of stakeholders

The stakeholders concerned with school latrines are students, teachers, parents, community leaders, health and education authorities, authorities from local and national administration, NGOs, donors etc. Their contributions for the construction, operation and maintenance etc. should be identified during the planning process.

Identifying and mobilizing potential stakeholders is an important step in the realization and sustainability of a sanitation facility in rural areas and will help in the timely mobilization of resources. Various stakeholders play various roles at different stages of a project cycle. Roles and responsibilities can be assigned using participatory techniques like participatory rural appraisal. Involvement of the primary users of the facilities in decision making at all stages of the project will guarantee proper use and sustainability of the sanitation facilities, for example in site selection, technology choice; preferred design, like hand washing facilities, distance from classrooms etc. Particular attention should be given to their involvement and decision making role.

Local authorities also play a significant role in the facilitation of the implementation of the sanitation facilities. Problems that may arise during the implementation of the water supply system sanitation facilities such as for example, land ownership, may be more easily resolved if the local authorities are brought on board and are involved in the decision making proces. Problems can only be identified by the active involvement of all stakeholders.

4 Guideline for the selection of the type of school latrine to be constructed

It should be simple in design, construction, operation and maintenance, such that a local semi-skilled o person can construct it.It should be low-cost and should allow, as much as possible, the use of locally available materials.o It should be hygienic (free from bad smell), inaccessible to insects, flies and animals) and should not o contaminate ground water.It should ensure safe disposal of excreta. o It should be culturally acceptable to the users and allow regular service without interruption.o It should provide the minimum requirement of safety and privacy to the students, and it should have the o following basic components:A platform in which the user can defecate easily and safely. The platform may have a squatting pan or •a simple drop hole or a straight. Where it is anticipated that emptying of the pit is possible, a manhole should be provided on the slab.A superstructure for privacy and protection against rain, wind and sun. This can be constructed from •locally available affordable materials like red bricks, hollow blocks, mud bricks, stones etc. Stakeholders should decide on the type of material to be used. Care must be taken to ensure that the use of locally available material does not impact negatively on the environment.. Vent pipes with fly screens should be provided outside of the superstructure.A substructure (pit) for storage and disposal of excreta. Where the soil condition is unstable the pit must •be lined with locally available materials like bricks, stones.,etc. A hand washing facility enabling students to wash their hands regularly with soap, ash or other locally •available materials after using toilets to strengthen hygiene promotion .


14

Other points to consider: Schools are major entry points for behavioural change among youth groups, who have the power to •influence the society. Following the construction of a school larine, the establishment of school hygiene clubs is recommended as an important tool to communicate hygiene messages. The construction of a school latrine should encourage hygiene promotion activities within and outside of the school.The inclusion of hygiene promotion in school curriculum must be advocated at Mahalia, Payam, State •and National levels

5 School latrines

5.1 Types of school latrines

The types of latrines that have been considered for comparison include: Pour-flush latrines (water based latrines), ventilated improved pit latrines, improved traditional pit latrines, aqua privies and composting (Ecosan) latrines.

Pour-Flush Latrine (PFL) with Leaching Pit This type of on-site sanitation facility is appropriate for rural and peri-urban areas where there is sufficient water for flushing and the soil is permeable. This design reduces smells and the breeding of flies, and is also appropriate when water is used for anal cleansing. About 2 to 5 litres of water is required for flushing depending mainly on the pan design and the distance to the pit, less water required for a shorter distance.

Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) LatrinesThese types of latrines are appropriate for rural institutions like schools. They can be constructed from locally available material and need only semi-skilled labour. A VIP can be easily replicated. This design reduces smells and the breeding of insects. A VIP latrine has the same components as a traditional latrine, the only difference being a vent pipe covered with a fly screen attached to the pit in the VIP. Wind blowing across the top of the vent pipe creates a flow of air which sucks out the foul smelling gases from the pit. As a result fresh air is drawn into the pit through the drop hole and the superstructure is kept free from smells. Flies, which enter the pit through the drop hole, are attracted to light and if the latrine is suitably dark inside, the flies will fly up the vent pipe to the light. They cannot escape because of the fly screen, so they are trapped at the top of the vent pipe until they dehydrate and die.

The cost for this type of latrine includes: materials (60-80%), transport (5-30%), and local labour (10-25%). %). The cost also depends on the volume of the pit, quality of lining (when lining has been applied), slab and superstructure, the use of locally available materials, and the region of implementation.

Composting (Ecosan) latrinesThis type of latrine can be constructed with single or double vaults, and consists of watertight chamber(s) to collect faeces. Urine is collected separately as the contents of the vault need to be kept relatively dry. The urine is diverted to a urine container placed outside the latrine and can be diluted with 3 to 6 parts of water for use as a fertilizer for a vegetable or fruit garden. Otherwise, it can be diverted away to a soak-away pit. In areas where water is used for anal cleansing, a separate diversion system should be incorporated so that this water can be diverted to a soak-away pit. .

The pedestal or squatting plate should therefore have three sections: one that allows faeces to go down to the pit, one to convey urine to a urine collection container (pot) and one to carry waste water from anal cleansing to a soak-away pit.

A separate location for faeces composting should be allowed for a single vault ecosan latrine. The organic soil fertiliser will be pathogen free and ready for use in a year.


15

This type of latrine is appropriate in areas where people would consider the use of human excreta as a fertilizer.

Improved Traditional Pit (ITP) Latrines This type of latrine is appropriate for rural areas. The cost for this type of latrine includes: materials (50-80%), transport (0-25%), and local labour (15-35%). The cost also depends on the volume of the pit, quality of lining (when lining has been applied), slab and superstructure, the use of locally available materials, and the region of implementation.

Aqua Privy (AP) LatrinesAqua privies are more appropriate for rural and semi-urban areas where water is available and the service of emptying the pit is not a problem. This system requires a soak away that will allow the liquid effluent to soak into the ground. Raw sewage is a health hazard.

5.2 Steps in the selection of a school latrine

The appropriateness of the latrines discussed above, for any school, depends mainly on availability of water in the school and a proper method of disposal of the content (excreta) of the pit. Performance based criteria such as reduction of smells and flies, requirement of water for flushing, appropriateness for various methods of anal cleansing, affordability and the possibility of converting human excreta into organic fertilizer for small scale agricultural should also be considered. School community consultation is essential to decide on the type of latrine to be constructed. School communities should be made aware of the cost related to each type and the amount of contribution expected from them. The end-users must also be shown how to ensure proper function of the latrine. Roles and responsibilities for operation, maintenance and replacement must be discussed and fully accepted by all stakeholders. Table 1 compares the pros and cons of the various types of latrine suggested above.

Table 1: Comparison of different types of latrines against some criteria set under section 2

Type of latrine

Affordability in terms of cost

Reduces smell and

insect breeding

Suitable for Social customs and habits Water requirement for flushing

Possibility of use of the nutrients of

excretaWater users Non water users

ITP It is the cheapest of all No Not appropriate as it

gets filled quickly Appropriate No No

VIP More expensive than ITP Yes Not appropriate as it

gets filled quickly Appropriate No No

PF

More expensive than AP and

ecosan, if it is twin pit

Yes Appropriate Not appropriate Yes No

EcosanMore expensive

than ITP and single pit VIP

No Not appropriate Appropriate No Yes

APMore expensive

than ITP and VIP

Yes if the level of the liquid is properly maintained

Appropriate Not appropriate Yes No

School latrines construction must be accompanied by dissemination of hygiene messages. In this regard a water based type of latrine should be prioritized above other types.


16

If a school can afford the cost and water is available for flushing, a PF type would be the best option; either a single pit (where recycling of human waste is unacceptable) or double pit where recycling of human excreta as a fertilizer is acceptable. This is also true of an ecosan composting latrine. For a PF type, the permeability of the soil must be right for the leaching pit(s) to function properly.

The VIP gets rid of the smell and the infestation of insects, but only if social customs and habits allow the use of dry anal cleansing.

If water for flushing is available and de-sludging is not an issue, an AP latrine maybe a possibility. But the users must be made aware that the content in the tank which is unsafe for public health (unless it is treated), must be removed regularly (desludging). This may be an issue for school communities as the content is unhygienic to handle. Also, the effluent requires a soak pit which may pollute the shallow groundwater.. The AP requires a bigger capacity tank for human waste (both solid and liquid) before the effluent is directed to the soak pit.

An ITP is often the only option, where other types of latrines are not feasible due to cost, soil conditions etc. This type of latrine doesn’t, however, guarantee reduction of smell and breeding of flies. In most cases, it is difficult to promote hygiene education, where reduction of smell and breeding of flies are not guaranteed. It might, however, be appropriate where water is not being used for anal cleansing and where water for flushing is not needed.

The final decision on the type of latrine to be constructed rests with the user and is dependant on the cost, appropriateness to customs and habits, and the operation and maintenance of the system

The acceptability of human waste as a fertilizer requires further investigation among potential users, to determine if this is culturally acceptable and if the users are capable of operating and maintaining the system properly. It is, therefore, recommended that awareness sessions on how to minimize associated health risks in handling human waste be part and parcel of the overall health and sanitation interventions.

6 Design and construction of school latrines

6.1 Design and construction

Minimum standardsOne squatting slab can service 50 boys or 30 girls within a 50m distance from the class rooms. During •emergencies (as per Sphere Minimum Standard) one squatting hole must be provided for 50 students (boys or girls). A minimum space of 0.80 to 0.90m (width) and 1.0m (length) should be provided for every squatting •space. Pits can be rectangular or circular,, based on the soil type: circular pits in loose formation and rectangular •pits in hard and stable formation.Another one or two squatting slabs, for teachers and other school employees are recommended. In •co-education schools, latrines for boys and girls should be separated with a minimum distance of 30m, if adequate space is availableAlthough a minimum distance of 15m is allowed in other countries, in Sudan it is recommended that •pits are located at a minimum distance of 30 to 50 meters away from drinking water sources (tube wells and hand dug wells) depending on soil condition. The distance depends on hydro-geological conditions such as texture of the soil and groundwater depth and flow. When groundwater levels are high or when the soil is too hard to dig, the pit may have to be raised above ground level.Hand washing facilities must be provided at beside each latrine. •Latrines in boys’ schools may have urinals. • Appropriate urinals that are culturally acceptable and


17

designed in consultation with the users maybe provided in boys’ schools Urinals in girls toilets must have partition walls.A bin for hygienic disposal of sanitary materials must be provided in every chamber in latrines in girls’ •schools.

6.1.1 Volume of the pit The pit can be rectangular or circular. The volume of a pit may be calculated from the equation

V = A + BV = 0.3CPN + 0.75 x w x l x h …………for rectangular pitV = 0.3CPN + n x 0.75 x h x П x d2 /4 ...for series of circular pits

Where:A is volume of accumulated sludge and is equal to 0.3 CPN in m3.B is volume of free space above the sludge and is equal to (0.75 x w x l x h) for rectangular pit or (n x 0.75x hxПxd2 / 4) for circular pit in m3

C is sludge accumulation rate or effective capacity per capita per year in m3/c/y. This figure varies from 0.04 to 0.092 and 0.045 to 0.0503

(Indian research institutes and UNDP TAG- Global projects). For Sudan situation it was arbitrarily taken as 0.06m3/c/y even though there is no available researched data for this.

P is the number of students using the latrine.

N is the number of years the pit is to be used before emptying.

h is the most top depth of the pit which is 1 m in this case

w is the width of the pit in m

l is the length of the pit in m

d is the diameter of a single pit in m

The factor 0.3 was introduced to allow for the fact that school latrines would only be used during certain hours of the day, mostly during the break, and that schools are closed for 3 to 4 months in a year. The factor 0.75 has been introduced as the pit is to be emptied or filled with earth when the level of the waste in the pit has a free space of three quarters of a meter from the level of squatting platform.

6.1.1.1 Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Latrines

Rectangular pitThe VIP School latrine discussed her consists of a single rectangular pit. The pit may or may not have access for desludging (refer Figures 1.1-1.4 & 2.1 -2.5).

The volume of a pit can be calculated using the equation given above. For example for a school latrine for 300 male students, the amount of sludge to be accumulated at a rate of 0.06 m3/p/y in a pit in a three year period is expected to be 16.2m3.

A pit with 6 drop holes, without lining and without access for de-sludging should have a minimum width of 0.8m and length of 7.1m. With lining this would increase to width -1.3 to 1.4m and length - 7.6m.

A pit that has access for de-sludging but with no lining should have a minimum width and length of 0.8 to 2 Engineering in Emergencies, second edition 2002, Jan Davis and Robert Lambert 3 Indian research institutes and UNDP TAG- Global projects


18

0.9m and 8.3m respectively allowing two points of access located at the sides of the latrine. With lining, the dimensions would increase to width - 1.3 to 1.4m and length - 8.8m.

In either case the pit should suffice 300 boys or 180 girls over a period of over three years as the volume (with a minimum depth of 3m) is more than the estimated required volume of 16.2m3.

Circular pitIn case a rectangular pit is not feasible for any reason, twin circular pit of 1.5m diameter may be constructed (refer Figures 1.5 & 1.6). A pit with a depth of 5m will be sufficient for the estimated volume of faeces. This type of pit is particularly appropriate for soft formation.


19

20

5m will satisfy the estimated volume of faeces. This type of pit is, particularly appropriate for soft formation.

I I

250 w 250 1750 120

Note: -All dimensions in mm. -Drawing not to scale

250

7100

25

0

1310

13

10

1120

11

20

1120

11

20

4600

Hand washing facility

Figure 1.1: Schematic Plan of VIP School Latrine without access to the pit

w

w = is width of the squatting space that ranges from 800 to 900 mm

Roof water should be drained using a gutter system and rainwater should be directed to the natural downward sloping direction and no rainwater should be allowed to enter into the pit.


20

21

25 25

w

3000

to

600

0 10

0015

0

75

2500

50

0

1000 250

500

250

A – Urinal for boys

250 250 500

200

30

2000

37

5

Detail of A

1000

700

Section I – I Pit in hard formation

PVC Vent pipe diameter 100mm with wire mesh for fly screen fixed on the top

75

200

800

PVC Drainage Pipe dia 100mm

The wall of urinal is smoothly plastered up to 1200mm height

Figure 1.2: Sectional Drawing of VIP School Latrine without access for desludging


21

22

1310

11

20

w+500

Figure 1.3: Removable reinforced concrete slabs for VIP School Latrine

(Drawing not to scale and all dimensions are in mm)

Type 1

Type 2

250 w 250

150

75

Section A - A

A A

A A

d

dminimum =100


22

23

w+500

w+500

1310

11

20

A c/c 130

B c/c 125

C c/c 110

A c/c 120

Type Shape Length of each type (mm)

Quantity Total length (mm)

1370 18 24660 A Refer to the drawing 1470 19 27930

B Refer to the drawing

1380 11 12980

C Refer to the drawing

1190 12 11880

w+450

60 60

Type A

1260

1070

60

60

60

60

Type B

Type C

Slab Type 2 Slab Type 1

Figure 1.4: Reinforcement bar schedule for removable slabs of VIP latrine without access to the pit.

All bars are of diameter 10mm. Drawing not to scale and all dimensions are in mm


23

24

Circular pit of internal diameter 1500

Squatting pan

Urinal

Manhole for desludging of pits (400 x 400)


1

2

3

4

5

1

2 3

4

5

Connecting PVC pipes, diameter min 150 6

6

7 Connection to water supply

7

1000 1000 250 250 120

250

w

w

w12

012

025

0

2000

A

A

Figure 1.5: Schematic Plan of VIP School Latrine with twin circular pits

Note: For detail of urinal and hand washing facility, refer to Figures 1.2 & 2.2

-Drawings are not to scale -All dimensions are in mm

8 PVC vent pipe of 100

8 8

8

w = width of squatting space that varies from 800 to 900 mm


24

25

1500 1500 250 (300) 250 (300) 500 (600)

800 - 900 800 - 900 800 - 900 120 120 250(300) <6

000

1000

20

00

Figure 1.6: VIP School Latrine – Cross Section of circular pit latrine

Note: -Twin circular pits in soft formation -Minimum thickness of lining: 250 for red bricks and 300 for stone masonry -Pits are covered with circular cover slabs -Squatting pans could be from cement mortar, ceramics or fiber reinforced plastic -Pits are interconnected with PVC pipes

Manhole

Section A - A

-Drawings are not to scale -All dimensions are in mm


25

26

J J

w 250

1750

250

All dimensions in mm. Drawing not to scale

250

8300

25

0

850

1310

13

10

850

1120

11

20

1120

11

20

4600

250

(w/2) +25 (w/2)+ 25

Two manhole covers of 850x750 size at each side of the latrine for access to desludge the pit

Figure 2.1 Ventilated Improved Pit Latrine (VIP) for schools with access for desludging. Urinal and hand washing facilities are provided

Urinal



26

27

25 25

w

4000

10

00

150

75

2500

50

0

1000 250

500

250

A

250 250 500 250

30

2000

Detail “A”

1000

700

Section J - J

PVC Vent pipe dia 100mm with mesh wire fly screen fixed at the top

75

250

800

PVC Drainage Pipe dia 100mm

Urinal


375

Figure 2.2: Sectional Drawing of VIP School Latrine


27

28

25 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132

25 132

25 13

6 13

6 13

6 13

6 13

6 13

6 25

Ø 10 mm

Note: -All measurements are in mm. -Drawing not to scale

1500

Reinforcement Type 1 Reinforcement Type 2

Type 1

Type 2

100 100

100 100

1450

1260

Figure 2.3: Reinforced Concrete Type A: Size 1500 x 1310 for VIP School Latrine with access for desludging

136

1310

136


28 29

Figure 2.4 Reinforced Concrete Type B: Size 1500 x 850 for VIP School Latrine with access for desludging

w+500 85

0

Ø 10 mm

Note: All measurements are in mm. Drawing not to scale


Type 3

100 100

100 100

w+450

800

25 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 25 132

25 13

6 13

6 13

6 13

6 13

6 25

13

6 13

6


29 30

Figure 2.5: Reinforced Concrete Slab Type C: Size 1500 x 1120 for VIP School Latrine with access for desludging

Ø 10 mm

Note: All measurements are in mm. Drawing not to scale

w+500


Type 1

Type 4

100 100

100 100

w+450

800

25

132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 132 25

132 13

4 13

4 13

4 13

4 13

4 13

4

1120

134

25

2 5 13

4


30

31

Section A -A

Section B - B

A

A

B B

w+300 w+50 w+50 w+50 w+50 w+300

6001050

Note: Where it is required to remove the slabs from the squatting spaces, internal dimensions of the squatting spaces will increase as indicated below: -Width = w+50 and w+300 for inner and outer squatting places respectively (Section A-A) Lrngth = 1000+50+600, the increment of 50 and 600 is for chiseling at both edges and maneuvering during removing (Section B-B) Thickness of the walls depends on the type of superstructure

Figure 2.6: Removable slabs for VIP and ITPL of School latrines Drawing not to scale and all dimensions are in mm


31

6.1.1.2 Pour-Flush Latrine (PFL) with Leaching Pit This type of latrine is recommended only where there is adequate water in the school for flushing and the soil conditions allow adequate infiltration of the liquid into the surrounding media. A Pour-flush latrine with a leaching pit is installed with a pan with a water seal (a U-shaped conduit partly filled with water) in the defecation hole. This overcomes the problems of flies, mosquitoes and odour. After use, the latrine is flushed by pouring water into the pan. The concrete floor slab with the pan is either on top of the leaching pit (direct system) or a short distance away (offset system) . Pits are usually lined for strength, but adequately permeable for infiltration. In offset systems a short length of sufficiently sloping PVC tube leads from the U-trap down to the pit

The size of the leaching pit depends on a number of factors such as: soil properties, number of users, water table conditions and the quantity of water being used for flushing and anal cleansing. The volume of the pit can be calculated using the equation given above. Two circular leaching pits, each of 2m diameter would suffice for a school with 300 male students, for a little over two years. For female students this size would serve 180 girls for a little less than four years.


32

33

1000 2501750 120

Urine drainage pipe from urinal; diameter 100mm, PVC

w+3

10

w+1

20

w+1

20

w+1

20

w+1

20

A

250

w+3

10

W = width of squatting space

D1

D2

Figure 3.1 Schematic Plan of Pour Flush School Latrine

All dimensions are in mm unless otherwise specified

A

Manhole Type 1 Internal 600 x 600, external 840 x 840 for brick lining & 1200 x 1200 for stone lining Manhole Type 2 Internal 1000 x 1000, External 1500 x 1500 for brick lining & 1600 for stone lining

Manehole Type 1

Manhole Type 2

GI Pipe diameter 1” connected to the water supply source

GI Pipe diameter ¾ “

GI Pipe diameter ½”

Squatting slab could be either from: -Cement concrete, -Ceramic or -Fiber reinforced plastic

PVC or cement mortar pipe, dia 150

Diversion box

Internal diameter of leaching pit (D) 1500 External diameter 2000 for brick lining & 2100 for stone lining


33

34

25 25

1000

1000

150

2500

50

0

1000 250

500

250 Urinal for boys

250 250 500

200

30

2000

375

Detail of urinal for boys

1000

700

Section I - I

75

200

The wall of urinal is smoothly plastered up to a height of 1200mm

Manhole type 2

Manhole type 1

1000

T1 T1 T2 T2

T3 T3

5000

20

0

2000

Minimum thickness T1 T2 T3

Brick wall 120 250 250 Masonry wall 300 300 300

Minimum Free Space 200

75

Note: -The walls of manholes and leaching pit should be raised by min 150 from the ground level to protect them from any possible flooding. -The depths of manholes (D1 & D2) depend on the slope of drainage pipes. However the minimum internal depth should not be less than 200.

Section A – A Drawing not to scale

All dimensions are in mm unless otherwise specified

D1

D2

Squatting slab (either from cement mortar, ceramics or fiber reinforced plastic) fixed on plain concrete

Plain concrete, thickness 100

Hard core minimum 300

Detail of squatting slab

Figure 3.2: Sectional Drawing of Pour Flush School Latrine

1000 250 250


34

35

60 60

790

25

25

790

(115

0)

790 (1150)

25 25

Manhole cover Type 1 -For brick wall:2x9 steel bars of diameter 10mm, c/c 100, and length of 910 each -For masonry wall: 2x12 steel bars of diameter 10mm, c/c 95, and length of 1210 each

60 60

1450 (1550)

Manhole cover Type 2 -For brick wall: 2x16 steel bars of diameter 10mm, c/c 96, and length of 1570 each. -For masonry wall: 2x17 steel bars of diameter 10mm, c/c 96, and length of 1670 each.

1450

(155

0)

1450 (1550) 25 25

25

25

Figure 3.3: Reinforcement bar schedule for rectangular manhole covers of Pour Flush School latrine

Diameter of all reinforcement bars 10mm. and their lengths are 910 or 1210 each

840 (1200)

70

1500 (1600)

70


35

36

Type of bar

Shape Length of each bar (mm)

Quantity Total length (mm)

A 690 4 2760 B 1245 4 4980 C 1580 4 6320 D 1830 4 7320 E 2030 4 8120 F 2170 4 8680 G 2280 4 9120 H 2360 4 9440 I 2415 4 9660 J 2450 4 9800 K 2450 2 4900 L 7910 1 7910 M 5860 1 5860 N 4010 1 4010 O 2055 1 2055

AB

C D

E F G

H I

JK

O

L

MN

C

B

A

2450 2525

75

Note: Minimum coverage of reinforcement bar is 25

-Reinforcement bar schedule for one cover slab of leaching pits. -Drawing not to scale. -All dimensions are in mm unless otherwise specified

Figure 3.4: Reinforcement bar schedule for cover slabs of leaching pits of Pour Flush School latrine


36

6.1.1.3 Composting (Ecosan) LatrineThe superstructure is built over the vault(s). This type of latrine can be built anywhere as there is no chance of pollution from the watertight chamber(s) into the surroundings. Where the ground water table is high, or there is rock formation, the vault(s) can be constructed above the ground.

The volume of the pit required to serve for a period of two years is 12m3. The dimensions of the pit would be 1.25m width, 5.9 to 6.5m length, and 1.50 to 1.65m depth.

6.1.1.4 Improved Traditional Pit LatrineThis type of basic latrine should be the last option when other types of latrines are not feasible. This type is constructed in schools where water is not provided for flushing. The squatting slab is made of concrete and is preferably removable. The size of the pit is equivalent to that of a ventilated improved latrine (16.2m3).

6.1.1.5 Aqua Privy LatrineThis type of latrine is constructed in areas where water is available for flushing and the the soil is relatively porous to allow the soak away to function properly. The volume of the pit is relatively bigger than that of a non-water based type of latrine. Aqua privies have a water-tight settling tank (Figure 3.5) to which waste is carried with the water during flushing down a pipe connected to the toilet. The drop pipe, which is attached to the toilet, must be submerged in the liquid layer for proper functioning of the aqua privy.


37

37

6.1.1.3 Composting (Ecosan) Latrine The superstructure is built over the vault(s). This type of latrine can be built everywhere as there is no pollution coming from the watertight chamber(s) to pollute the surroundings. Where there is high ground water table or rocky formation of the construction site, the vault(s) can be constructed above the ground. The volume of the pit required to serve for a period of two years is 12m3. The size of the pit required to accommodate this volume will have a width of 1.25m and length of 5.9 to 6.5m and a depth of 1.50 to 1.65m. 6.1.1.4 Improved Traditional Pit Latrine This type of latrine should be constructed as a last option where other types of latrines are not feasible at all. This type of latrine is constructed in schools where water is not provided for flushing. The squatting slab is made of concrete slab and preferably removable slab. The size of the pit is equivalent to that of ventilated improved latrine (16.2m3). 6.1.1.5 Aqua Privy Latrine This type of latrine is constructed in areas where water is provided for flushing and the type of the soil is relatively porous that allows the soak away to function properly. The volume of the pit is relatively bigger than the pits of non-water based types of latrines. Aqua privies have a water-tight settling tank (Figure 3.5) to which waste is carried by water flushing down a pipe connected to the toilet. The drop pipe, which is attached to the toilet, must be submerged in the liquid layer for proper functioning of aqua privies.

Figure 3.5: Aqua Privy Latrine Drop pipe and soak away connection

Soak away Drop pipe

Water-tight tank

Vent pipe


38

38

1750

1250 250 250

w+3

70

w+3

70

w+1

20

w+1

20

w+1

20

w+1

20

5900

- 65

00

250

w

w

w

w

w

1000

250

120

120

120

120

120

5900

- 65

00

1750

Figure 4.1: Schematic Plan of Ecosan School Latrine - Double Pit Arrangement -

All measurements are in mm & drawing not to scale

A

A B B

To urine collection pot, drainage pipe PVC and min dia 75

Water from anal cleansing to waste water collection vessel or soak-away pit, drainage pipe PVC and min dia 75

Note: Where composting of faeces has been planned outside of the pit of a latrine, ecosan school latrine could be constructed with only one pit.

Access opening to the pit at the back sides of the latrines

One supplementary access opening at each side of a latrine

1

2

-Removable slab type 1 -Size: 1750x1370

-Removable slab type 2 - Size: 1750x1120

1

2

2

2

2

1

Squatting slabs could be either from: - Cement mortar, - Ceramics, or -Fiber reinforced plastic



w = width of squatting space that varies from 800 to 900


39

17006060w+0706060w+3206060AABCType AType BType C

39

75

100

500

(6w) + 600 250 250

2000

10

00

w w 250 250 w120 w120 w w120 120 120

Figure 4.2 Ecosan School Latrine with six drop holes

Section A - A

Pit access opening for removal of composted faeces

Urine collection pot at each side of a latrine

Section B - B

250 250 1250

1500

- 16

50

75

1000

20

00


40

40

1700

60 60

w+0

70

60

60

w+3

20

60

60

A

A

B

C

Type A

Type B

Type C

Type of bar Shape Length (mm) Quantity Total length (mm)

A Refer to the drawing

1820 17 30940

1240 14 17360 B Refer to the drawing 1340 14 18760

990 13 12870 C Refer to the drawing 1090 13 14170

Thickness of slabs 75 and Diameter of all bars 10.Drawing not to scale and all dimensions are in mm

Figure 4.3 Ecosan School Latrine: Reinforcement bar schedule for removable slabs Type 1 and Type 2.

Slab type 1

Slab type 2


41

6.1.2 Depth of a pit The depth of a pit may vary from 3 to 7 meters depending upon the stability of the soil.

As a general rule, if latrines are going to be constructed in areas where flooding is likely, the lining of the latrine and squatting slab should be raised by 0.15m at least above the expected line of flooding. In hard formations, where the digging of pit is difficult, the pit should be constructed above the hard formation, and the lining and squatting platform raised above the ground level in order to ensure the desired volume. In this case, the lining must be water tight to avoid seepage out of the latrines onto the ground, and to prevent any surface water getting into the latrine.

In a relatively hard formation and where the depth is significant and does not require lining, the minimum width should be 0.8m; this is the minimum working width required for any kind of pit as indicated in Figure 5.

6.1.2.1 Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Latrines

For rectangular pitField experience has shown that, the depth of a pit without lining and without access for de-sludging should range from 3m to 7m. A pit with access for de-sludging can be less deep, because of the limitation of the suction head of the equipment used for removing the sludge from the pit. The maximum suction head of vacuum trucks for de-sludging is 6m at sea level. The depth of a pit with access for de-sludging including the free space above the sludge surface should be less than 6m.

For circular pitA depth of 5m in each of 2 circular pits of 1.5m diameter provides a total volume of about 17.66m3 which is more than the estimated volume (16.2m3)of faeces likely to be accumulated by 300 students, over 2 years. The depth can be increased to 7m if the latrine is required to serve for more than 2 years without de-sludging or less than 6m where de-sludging is planned.

6.1.2.2 Pour-Flush Latrine with Leaching Pit The minimum depth of each leaching pit including the free space should be 3.5m to ensure at least 2 years service.

6.1.2.3 Composting (Ecosan) LatrineIn order to satisfy the required volume indicated above, the depth of the vault should be in the range of 1.5 to 1.65m.

6.1.3 Lining of a pit

6.1.3.1 Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) Latrines The pit can be lined completely or partially as indicated in Figure 5. In stable soil, a minimum lining depth of 1m below the ground level is required as foundation to support the load exerted by the cover slab and the superstructure. The lining material can be bricks or stones. In a rectangular pit of depth greater than 3m, additional reinforcement is required: intermediate beams around the lining at one third and two thirds of the depth of the pit (in addition to the top and bottom tie beams), supporting columns at the four corners and two additional columns at the middle of each long side of the pit. In case the lining collapses, these supporting columns will carry the load of the superstructure and covering slabs. A series of circular lined pits are therefore recommended (rather than rectangular pits) which are not likely to collapse. This will also reduce the cost of constructing supporting columns and beams This is especially true for deep pits.


42

6.1.3.2 Pour flush latrinesA leaching pit can be lined with bricks or stones. The honeycombing lining method in alternative layers is recommended up to the wet level (refer Figure 3.2). This method facilitates the infiltration of the liquid part into the surrounding soil.

6.1.3.3 Composting (Ecosan) LatrinesIt is preferable to construct the single or double vaults of ecosan above the ground in order to facilitate the removal of the contents of the vault. However, part of the vault can be constructed underground (refer Figure 4.2). The walls of the vault can be made from locally available material like, red bricks, stone or hollow blocks. In all cases, the vaults should be water tight in order to avoid infiltration of liquid.

6.1.3.4 Improved Traditional Pit LatrineThe lining of an ITPL is more or less similar to that of a VIP latrine

6.1.3.5 Aqua Privy LatrinesThe tank should be strictly water-tight. The liquid is allowed to flow through a connection pipe to a soak away pit.

6.1.4 Squatting platform

6.1.4.1 Ventilated Improved Pit Latrines (VIP)

Rectangular pitsFor both types of pits (with or without access for de-sludging), two types of pre-cast concrete slabs with pans of either concrete, fibre reinforced plastic or ceramic can be used for constructing the squatting platform (refer Figure 1.3). The recommended dimensions of the squatting space are 0.8m by 1.0m or 0.9 by 1.0m. Within this space, two concrete slabs 1.31m by 1.3m (or 1.31m by 1.4m) are installed in two exterior squatting rooms and four concrete slabs 1.12m by 1.3m (or 1.12m by 1.4m) are installed in the interior squatting rooms of the latrine. These pre-cast reinforced concrete slabs can be re-used in a new pit when necessary. An additional four slabs (0.85m by 0.65m or 0.85 m by 0.75m), should be provided for a pit with access for de-sludging, two slabs on top of each side of a pit. All slabs should be 75mm thick.

The concrete mix ratio of cement: sand: aggregate should be 1:2:4, complying with the British Standard 5328. According to this standard, 1m3 of concrete requires 6 bags of cement (each 50kg), 490 litres (700kg) of sand and 800 litres (1170kg) of aggregate for reinforced concrete in mild conditions.The use of a single monolithic reinforced concrete slab casted in-situ is not recommended as it is difficult to re-use in a new pit during latrine replacement.

Circular pitsDuring emergencies, however, plastic or concrete slabs of size of 600x800mm or 1000x1200mm can be used in the early stages of the emergency. However, supporting beams (100mm in diameter and 1400mm in length) must be provided, four beams per slab. These beams can be made from locally available wooden planks (preferably termite resistant)

6.1.4.2 Pour flush latrineThe squatting platform can be constructed separately from that of the leaching pit. The squatting slab is usually a concrete floor with a pan (made from concrete, ceramic or fibre reinforced plastic) with a U-water seal attached (refer Figure 3.2). A PVC pipe of minimum diameter of 100mm further connects the U-seal with the leaching pit. Manholes are included at appropriate positions. The shorter the connecting pipe, the less amount of water required for flushing.


43

6.1.4.3 Composting (ecosan) latrineThe squatting platform should be constructed on top of the vault. The squatting pan, should facilitate the separation of urine and faeces (refer Figures 4.1 & 4.2). If water is used for anal cleansing, the pan will have three sections: one that allows faeces to go down to the pit, one that conveys urine to a urine collection container (pot) and one to carry waste water from anal cleansing to a soak-away pit or a small garden plot. The faeces and urine should not be allowed to mix in the ecosan latrine.

6.1.4.4 Improved Traditional Pit LatrineThe squatting platform can be constructed from either one monolithic concrete slab or individual removable slabs.

6.1.4.5 Aqua Privy LatrinesAqua privies can have a pan of either cement mortar, fibre reinforced plastic or ceramic. The pans must be connected to the liquid content in the water tight tank by a drop pipe which is submerged to a minimum depth of 75mm.

6.1.5 Superstructure

Latrine walls can be made from locally available durable materials like red bricks, hollow blocks, mud bricks or stone masonry. School community consensus is important on the choice of material. The minimum thickness of the wall of the superstructure depending on the material used is indicated in Figure 6. The internal surfaces of the walls should be plastered and smoothed down to facilitate cleaning. The external surfaces can be plastered, rendered or painted depending on the choice of material used. The superstructure must provide privacy and convenience to the user, especially female students. All squatting rooms must have doors. If required, a water tap should be fixed in each squatting room for the comfort of female students. For privacy, each latrine must have a screen wall in front of the doors: two doors are fixed at each end of the wall. The type of screen should be discussed with the users. A minimum squatting space of 1000mm x 800mm (or 900mm) area must be availed.

The roof should be constructed from corrugated iron sheets of appropriate dimension, fixed by a galvanized iron hook to appropriate sizes of angle iron purloins.

During emergencies, plastic sheeting, mats, leaves and removable iron sheets can be considered for constructing the superstructure.

.


44

45

Pit lining in hard formation

1000

-The top 1m depth should be lined with locally available appropriate materials like redbrick, stone etc -The minimum bottom width of the pit should not be less than 0.8m (minimum working space).

800

Lining of pit in loose formation -Lining in rectangular pit latrine. The dimensions of t will depend on the depth H of the pit, stability factors of the loose formation and the type of lining material to be used. -It should be noted that the deeper the rectangular pit latrine, the greater the dimension of t. -For deep pits avoid rectangular shape and prefer circular pits that may require uniform thickness of lining that minimizes lining material requirement and the lining is more stable in circular pit than in deep rectangular pit

t t

H

Figure 5: Lining in different soil formation

a)

b)


45

46

Figure 6: Wall thicknesses of superstructure from different materials All dimensions are in mm

Redbrick walls

Hollow block walls

Mud brick walls Stone

masonry walls

250

200

120

150

250 250

200 200

External walls

Internal walls

200

300

200 800 - 900

200

300800 - 900

300

800 - 900 800 - 900

1000

1000

100

1000

1000

t

Note: -The whole internal surfaces of walls from mud bricks and up to the height of 2000 of walls from redbrick, hollow blocks and stones masonry should be plastered with two coats (thickness 25mm) of cement mortar and smoothened. -The external faces of walls from redbrick, hollow blocks and stones could be left rendered while the whole surfaces of mud bricks should be plastered with cement mortar. -The internal partition walls of superstructures from stone masonry wall should be either from redbrick, hollow blocks or mud bricks in order to avoid unnecessary load on the slabs as the slabs are not designed to carry such load. -The dimensions of the bricks vary from place to place and from state to state. Designers should adopt the dimensions of the walls according to the available brick sizes in each particular area.

The internal partition walls could be either from red bricks, hollow blocks or mud bricks with respective thickness (t).


46

6.1.6 Vent pipe

It is recommended that three vent pipes are installed outside of the superstructure of the VIP latrine to remove the foul smelling gases. PVC pipes of minimum diameter 100mm. are used, with the uppermost part of the vent pipe protruding 500 – 1000mm above the ridge (or the highest part) of the roof of the superstructure. The vent pipes should be fixed at a vertical position on the slab, to remove odour and control flies, and to the extent possible, placed at the opposite side of the inclination of the roof. A wire mesh (preferably corrosion resistance) is placed at the top of the vent pipes to prevent the entry of flies. If corrosion resistance wire mesh is not available, the wire mesh is likely to get damaged more easily and should be replaced as necessary.

6.1.7 Urinal

To allow for the possibility of urination alone, separate urinals in girls’ latrines should be provided in. A horizontal space of 0.5m is enough for one student. The height, shape or type of urinal, must be decided by the school communities based on the local culture and convenience of the urinals. The boys’ urinals should be rectangular in shape, of dimension 0.5m by 0.25m by 4m as indicated in this guideline, for use by 8 students at any one time. The girls ‘urinals should have a minimum area of 0.5m by 0.6m and height of 1.2m.

6.1.8 Hand washing facility

Each latrine should be provided with a hand washing facility with three taps for each block of six latrines. The availability or non-availability of soap and detergent for hand washing will to some extent determine the type of facility, which should be determined by the school community. The waste water from hand washing facilities should be properly drained and directed to a soak away pit. Water should not be allowed to log around such facilities.

47

All squatting rooms must have doors. In case it is found necessary, a water tap should be fixed in each squatting room for female students. 6.1.6 Vent pipe: To minimize the foul gases from the pit of VIP latrine, three vent pipes are recommended to be installed outside of the superstructure. The vent pipes are of PVC pipes of minimum diameter 100mm. The upper most part of the vent pipe should be 500 – 1000mm above the ridge (or the highest part) of the roof of the superstructure. The vent pipes should be fixed at a vertical position on the slab and as much as possible at the opposite side of the inclination of the roof. Vent pipe should be vertical to remove odor and control flies. Wire mesh (preferably corrosion resistance) should be placed on top of the vent pipes as fly screen. Where corrosion resistance wire mesh is not available there should be regular replacement of the damaged wire meshes. 6.1.7 Urinal: As quite a lot of students may need the latrine for urination only, urinals should be provided in addition to the latrines. A horizontal space of 0.5m is enough for one student. The height, shape or type of urinal, however, should be decided by the school communities taking into consideration the local culture and convenience of the urinals. Urinal for boys could be rectangular in shape an has a size of 0.5m by 0.25m by 4m as indicated in this guideline. It can be used by 8 students at any one time. Unlike for boys, urinals for a girl should have a minimum area of 0.5m by 0.6m and height of 1.2m.

6.1.8 Hand washing facility:

500 500

600

Min 1200

120 120 120

Figure 7: Urinals for girls Drawing not to scale and dimensions in mm


47

6.1.9 Options for accessing of pits

The pits of school latrines are labelled accessible, or inaccessible depending on the availability of a desludging service

In accessible pits provision is made to allow the removal of the contents of a pit. Depending on the type of de-sludging service available, the following may be provided:.

A manhole at the top of the cover slab as indicated in Figures 1.5, 1.6 and 2.1 •Openings on the sides of the vault as indicated in Figure 4.1 •Removable slabs from squatting rooms as indicated on Figure 2.6. •

An inaccessible latrine should be abandoned and replaced with a new one. The abandoned pit must be sealed and properly fenced to prevent access for humans and animals for 12-18 months to ensure the complete decomposition of the pit’s contents in order to avoid any health and environmental hazards while handling the pit’s contents. Where removable slabs are provided, the dimensions of the squatting space should be increased as indicated on Figure 2.6. The increment allows for the labourers to be able chisel the slab and to have adequate room to pull the slabs out from the top of the pit.

6.1.10 Types of materials for the superstructure

The walls of the superstructure of school latrines can be made from any of the following:

a) Red bricksb) Mud bricksc) Hollow blocksd) Stonee) Corrugated iron sheets and RHS, as shown in Figures 6 and 8

In emergencies:f) Plastic sheetsg) Leavesh) Matsi) Movable iron sheets

49

Figure 8: Superstructure of a latrine made from corrugated iron sheet and RHS

As the sizes of bricks may vary from state to state and from place to place, designers should adjust the thickness of the walls of the superstructure according to the available size. 6.2 Advantages and disadvantages of different types of school latrines VIP latrines Advantages: Free from odor and flies. Ensures continuous use by alternating use of pit, in case of double pit VIP latrine.

Manual cleaning is safe after excreta are allowed to stabilize for a period of more than 18 to 24 months.

Minimum consumption of water and so can function even in less permeable soils. Easy to construct and maintain. Most suitable where anal cleansing is by dry method Suitable in impervious soils and rocky strata.

Disadvantages: Unsuitable where anal cleaning is by water. Cleaning of pit is to be done manually. Superstructure needs to be removed when pit is filled up in case of single pit VIP

latrine. Greater care is required in changing over the use of pits in case of double pit VIP latrine and costly in comparison to other pit and single pit pour-flush latrines.

If proper vent and fly trap are not provided flies will breed. Difficulty in proper cleaning of the floor due to restricted use of water.

Pour-flush latrines Advantages: It is sanitary and durable It provides all the health benefits which a conventional sewerage system provides. If desired the pedestal type can replace the toilet seat.


48

As the sizes of bricks may vary from state to state and from place to place, the thickness of the walls of the superstructure should be adjusted to the size available.

6.2 Advantages and disadvantages of different types of school latrines

VIP latrinesAdvantages:

Free from odour and flies•Ensures continuous use by allowing alternate pits to be used and in the case of a double pit VIP latrine, •manual cleaning is safe after the excreta has decomposed during a period of 18 to 24 months Minimum consumption of water and so can function even in less permeable soils.•Easy to construct and maintain.•Suitable where anal cleansing is done with dry materials•Suitable in impervious soils and rocky strata.•

Disadvantages:Unsuitable where anal cleansing is with water•Pit cleaning is manual•Superstructure needs to be removed when the pit is filled up in case of single pit VIP latrine. Greater •care is required in changing over the use of pits in the case of double pit VIP latrineCostly in comparison to other pits and single pit pour-flush latrines•If proper vent and fly trap are not provided flies will breed•Proper cleaning of the floor is difficult due to restricted use of water•

Pour-flush latrinesAdvantages:

Sanitary and durable•Provides all the health benefits which a conventional sewerage system provides.•A pedestal type seat can be used to replace the toilet seat if required •Odourless due to the water seal •Vent pipe is not required as the gases get dispersed in the soil through holes in the pit lining•Only a small quantity of water is required (about 2 litres) for flushing.•Can be constructed with local labour and materials.•

Disadvantages:Not suitable in rocky areas, for impermeable soils, if solid materials are used for anal cleansing and if •the site is flooded or water table is too close to the ground surface.Cannot be upgraded to a high volume flushing cistern.•

Compost (Ecosan) latrinesAdvantages:

Suitable in rocky areas and where there is a shallow ground water level as construction can be above •groundWater required is only for cleaning the latrine; no need of water for flushing.•Separately collected urine and composted faeces could be valuable resources (fertilizers) for use in •agricultural gardening.


49

Disadvantages:If any liquid (urine or water) is not properly separated, the system will not function properly.•In areas where the recycling of human faeces is not accepted, implementation of this type of latrine •might be difficult.

Improved traditional pit latrinesAdvantages

Construction cost is low as compared to other types.•Can be constructed by unskilled labour in a short time.•

DisadvantagesOdours and flies cannot be completely eliminated.•Non-aesthetic.•Floor is difficult to clean properly.•Not durable and difficult to dig in hard formation.•

Aqua Privy LatrinesAdvantages:

Sanitary and durable•Provides all the health benefits which a conventional sewerage system provides.•Odourless due to the water seal. •Can be constructed with local labour and materials.•

Disadvantages:Not suitable for impermeable soils (for the soak away), if the site is flooded, or the water table is too •close to the ground surface.If the water seal is not maintained, leaking tanks may cause insect and odour problems.•Unsuitable where water is scarce.•Efficient function only when very well designed, constructed and operated.•

7 Management, operation and maintenance of school latrines

The overall management, O & M responsibility including replacement of household latrines lies with the individual household. This has to be made clear at the outset. Communities (at household level) should be informed and agree on how the facilities are to be operated and maintained as suggested below.

Ventilated Improved Pit (VIP) LatrinesThe operation of a pit latrine is quite simple and consists of regularly cleaning the slab with water (and a little disinfectant, if available) to remove any excreta and urine. The door must always be closed and the roof covered, to keep the inside of the superstructure dark. The drop hole should never be covered as this hinders airflow. Appropriate anal cleansing materials should be available in or near the latrine. Non biodegradable materials like stones, plastic, rags etc should not be thrown into the pit as they reduce the effective volume of the pit and hinder mechanical emptying.

Problems associated with VIP latrines include: bad quality of the floor slab due to the use of inappropriate materials; improper curing of concrete; inferior quality of fly screens which may get damaged by solar radiation and foul gases; and improperly sited latrines which can get flooded or undermined. Also, children may be afraid to use the latrine because of the dark or because of fear of falling into the pit. If the superstructure allows too much light to come in, flies will be attracted by the light coming through the squat hole and fly out into the superstructure. This may jeopardize the whole VIP concept. Odours may increase during the night and


50

early morning hours in latrines that rely on solar radiation for the air flow in the vent pipe than on wind speed. Leakages between pits are likely when the dividing wall is not impermeable or the soil is too permeable. In hard soils it may be impossible to dig a proper pit. Mosquito breeding in the pits cannot be prevented.

Taking into consideration the above problems and limitations, monthly checks should include: the floor for cracks, and the vent pipe and fly screen for corrosion or damage. Repair of the superstructure, especially when there are light leaks may also be necessary. When the contents of the pit reach 0.5m below the slab, a new pit should be dug and the old pit covered with top soil. The old pit could be emptied mechanically, but this should not be done when the excreta is fresh, as this could pause a major health risk.

Pour-flush latrinesFlushing water should be always available near the latrine. Before use the pan is wetted with a little water to avoid faeces sticking to the pan. After use, the pan is flushed with no more than 2 litres of water. No material that could obstruct the U trap should be thrown into the pan. The floor, squatting pan, or seat, door handles and other parts of the superstructure must be cleaned regularly with brush, soap and water. Rainwater should not be allowed to enter leach pits. A water tap in the latrine will shorten the lifespan of the leaching pit, therefore, it is recommended that one is not provided.

The Pan must be checked monthly for cracks. If the excreta does not flush away quickly, the PVC pipes may be choked. Immediate unblocking with scoops and long twigs is recommended. Full pits must be abandoned and covered with at least 0.5m soil, or emptied by mechanical means (if such a service is available).

Composting (Ecosan) LatrinesThis type of latrine should be constructed and operated within a pilot scheme in order to determine whether it would be popular for replication. In areas where a pilot scheme has been initiated, the following operational and maintenance procedures are recommended.

Initially, a layer of absorbent material (sand and gravel) is put in the vault and after each use, the faeces is covered with ash (or lime, sawdust, shredded leaves or vegetable matter) to deodorize the faeces, soak-up excessive moisture and improve carbon/nitrogen ratio, which ensures that sufficient nitrogen is retained to make a good fertilizer. In a single-vault ecosan latrine, when the vault is full, the contents should be removed to another composting location and should decompose anaerobically. The contents can be removed from the vault through the door at the side of the vault, built for this purpose. The contents in the composting location should be covered with dry earth and kept for at least one year to make them pathogen free.

In the case of double vault ecosan latrines, when the first vault is three quarters full, it is completely filled with dry powdered earth and sealed. The contents are left untouched for at least a year for anaerobic decomposition and available for use as fertiliser. The second vault is used until it is three quarters full and the first vault is emptied by hand.

Improved Traditional Pit LatrinesThe operation of a pit latrine is quite simple and consists of regularly cleaning the slab with little quantity of water (and a little disinfectant, if available) to remove any excreta and urine. The tight fitting lid must be replaced after use to ensure insect control and reduction of the smell. Non biodegradable materials like stones, plastic, rags etc should not be thrown into the pit as they reduce the effective volume of the pit and hinder mechanical emptying.

Monthly maintenance includes: checking the slab for cracks; the superstructure for structural damage; ensuring that the lid is fixed tight; and ensuring that surface water continues to drain away from the latrine. Anticipation of the latrine becoming full is essential as decisions have to be made in advance on: where to relocate the sludge; timely digging of another pit and transfer the slab and the superstructure to the new pit (where the slab and superstructure materials are reusable). The contents of the old pit must then be covered


51

with at least 0.5m of top soil to provide a hygienic seal. In addition the old pit should be completely isolated or protected and kept out of the reach of children and animals.

Immediate action must be taken if the following problems occur: parasites in cracks in the floor (as a result of unsuitable materials for the floor slab or improper curing of concrete); damaged or broken lids that have fallen into the pit; flooding of the latrine by surface water, etc.

Aqua PrivyRegular cleaning of the toilet with detergent in small amounts is recommended. The use of large amounts of detergent or chemicals may disturb the biochemical process in a tank.

The amount of liquid in the tank should be maintained at a level high enough to ensure the bottom of the drop pipe is at least 75mm below the liquid level. A bucket of water should be poured down the drop pipe daily to clear scum from the bottom of the drop pipe and to maintain the water seal.

Routine inspection is necessary to check if de-sludging is required. The tank must be emptied when solids occupy between one-half and two-thirds of the total depth between the liquid level and the bottom of the tank.

8 Recommendations

General Recommendationsa) School latrines are relatively expensive to construct and maintain, and these costs must be shared by all stakeholders. Roles and responsibilities for operation and maintenance including possible replacement should be agreed upon by all stakeholders.

b) Roof inclination should be from the back to the front of the building, or from the middle sloping to the right and left sides of the latrines to allow efficient fixing of the vent pipes. Proper anchorage to the wall should be provided if the vent pipes are fixed on the shorter wall. See pictures below.


52

54

Particular 1. Ventilated Improved Latrines There should be a clear understanding of the components of VIP latrines and how they are functioning. If the superstructure allows too much light, the flies that enter into the pit will be attracted by the light coming through the squat hole and may fly out into the superstructure. If vent pipes are not properly installed again they will not function in a right way. All of these may jeopardize the whole VIP concept. Under such conditions, it is better to provide with drop-hole lids to avoid the breeding of flies by compromising the VIP concept. Inferior qualities of fly screens get damaged very easily by the effect of solar radiation and foul gases. It is, therefore, good to choose a better quality of fly screens or replace it regularly.


53

Specific recommendation

1. Ventilated Improved LatrinesThere should be a clear understanding of the components of a VIP latrine and its functioning, among the school community.

If the superstructure allows too much light in, flies will be attracted by the light coming through the squat hole and may fly out into the superstructure. Also, if vent pipes are not properly installed, they will not function efficiently. These issues can jeopardize the whole VIP concept. Under such conditions, it is better to provide drop-hole lids to avoid the breeding of flies rather than compromise the VIP concept.

Fly screens of inferior quality are more susceptible to damage by solar radiation and foul gases. The purchase of a good quality fly screen is recommended; otherwise it will need regular replacement.

A rectangular pit in soft formation is best if dug shallow, with lining provided for the full depth. Deep, rectangular pits, in soft formation, require expensive reinforced concrete beams and columns, which will make the latrine costly, and often unaffordable. The beams and columns do not guarantee the collapse of the pit itself; they only support the slab and the superstructure from falling if the pit collapses. A better choice is to construct a series of circular pits that are completely lined, and do not need supporting columns and beams. Like in hand dug wells, locally available materials like red bricks, stones etc. can be used for lining.

Deeper pits - up to 7m should be encouraged in relatively hard formation that can be dug, as they may not need a complete lining.

Where anal cleansing with water is practised, the squatting slab should be designed so that that the waste water is not allowed to flow into the pit, but is diverted to a soak away pit.

2. Pour-flush latrinesPour-flush latrines are unsuitable where it is common practice to use bulky materials for anal cleansing such as corncobs or stones which cannot be flushed through the U-trap. Double offset pits are usually much smaller than single pits because they need to last for twelve to eighteen months at least before they can be emptied by hand. In a direct pit system less water is needed for flushing than in an offset system. Pour-flush latrines may be upgraded to a septic tank with drainage field or soak away or be connected to a small-bore sewerage system whenever this is required and feasible.

Frequent problems associated with pour-flush latrines are: Blockage of U-trap because of bad design, construction or improper use. Damage of U-trap caused by improper unblocking (sometimes U-traps are broken on purpose to prevent blockage). There could be blocked diversion boxes or PVC pipes. Contents in pit do not decompose safely because the double pits are too close to each other without an effective seal between them, allowing liquids to percolate from one pit to the other. Where pour-flush pans are not available full-flush pans may be used, but they require more water (7-12 litres), which can be a problem if water is limited.

The limitations of pour-flush latrines include: leaching pits only function in permeable soils; latrines must be at least 30 meters away from water sources; can only be used in areas where sufficient water is available for flushing.

Therefore, Pits can only be emptied manually if their contents have been left to decompose for at least one year. •Otherwise, either new pit has to be dug when a pit is full or the pit has to be emptied mechanically.If double pits latrines are used, the school needs to understand the concept of the system fully in order •to be able to operate it properly.


54

User education must cover aspects such as reasons for switching pits, using one pit at a time, use of •excreta as future manure and the need to leave the full pit untouched for at least one year before it can be emptied. Users also need to know how to switch the pit and how to empty it, even when they do not do these •tasks themselves. Where these tasks are carried out by the private (informal) sector, the labourers also have to be educated •in the concept of the system and its operational

3. Composting (Ecosan) latrinesThese types of latrines can only be replicated after thorough investigation of their performance in a pilot scheme. The major issue is whether there is a possibility of recycling human waste as a useful resource.

4. Improved Traditional Pit (VIP) LatrinesThese types of latrines should only be constructed in schools where there is no chance of water based latrines. It should be understood that hygiene promotion when this type of latrine is constructed is a challenge it does not guarantee the reduction of smell and breeding of flies.

5. Aqua PrivyThese types of latrines should be constructed where there is adequate water and where the soil is permeable allowing for the soak away. Pit de-sludging should not be attempted manually as the sludge contains pathogenic microorganisms hazardous to public health.

6. Septic TankThis type of on-site sanitation system has not been discussed in these Guidelines, since it is the most expensive option and requires a large volume of water for flushing. Where affordable, it could be constructed in schools. However one must consider the need for periodical cleaning of the septic tan and disposal of the muck and sludge, which produce foul smells, and increase mosquito breeding. The effluent contains faecal coliform (FC) bacteria in the range of 106 to 108 per 100ml and it is unsafe unless properly treated.


55

Annexes The development of these guidelines1. People Contacted2. Technical working group members3. Some selected bibliography and references4.


56

Annex 1: The Development of these Technical Guidelines

The Technical Guidelines development process was completed in two stages: the preparation stage and the finalization stage.

A. The Preparation StageThe preparation stage began in April 2006 with the agreement to develop technical guidelines for eight selected WASH facilities. GONU later requested the addition of further water supply facilities. The preparation stage that also included information collection and analysis was completed in December 2006.

Collection of Information: Technical and managerial information for the development of the technical guidelines was collected from:

PWC/WES, SWCs and GWWD•UNICEF, WHO, World bank and NGOs•National institutions like SSMO•International institutions like IRC and WEDC•Donors, e.g. DFID.•WASH standards from various countries, i.e. BS, IS, DIN•Field trips to various WASH facilities in 14 states in North and South Sudan and through live discussion •with WASH sector professionals and community members.

Analysis of collected information:A Steering Committee comprising senior staff from PWC, WES and UNICEF together with a WASH consultant analyzed the collected information. The consultant put together the information to produce draft Guidelines for each WASH facility (zero drafts). The draft Guidelines were shared with the Steering Committee at Khartoum level, and their comments incorporated in revised drafts (first drafts).

The first drafts were shared with PWC, UNICEF, various SWCs, INGOs and GoSS for information and feedback. All relevant feedback was incorporated into second drafts. These were reviewed by a national review workshop in December 2006. Recommendations and comments of the national review workshop were incorporated into third drafts, which were shared with a wider range of stakeholders, including specific technical working groups.

B. The Finalization StageTechnical Guidelines for the 14 selected WASH facilities were finalized after further consultation with WASH sector partners, as indicated below:

Technical Working Group Discussions:Professionals from various ministries participated in these technical working group discussions. Representatives of MIWR, MOH, University of Khartoum, Sudan Academy of Science, and the private sector, NGOs, PWC/WES, UNICEF and Khartoum Water Corporation also participated. This technical consultation process, beginning July 2007 and ending in December 2007 resulted in the fourth drafts of the Technical Guidelines.

Regional Review Workshops:Three Regional Review Workshops were conducted in Nyala, Wad Medani and Juba in November-December 2007. The Juba workshop recommended wider consultation within Southern Sudan for document review and incorporation of Southern Sudan specific contexts into the documents. Fifth drafts were produced following the recommendations of the review workshops.


57

Wider Consultation by GoSS:Based on the recommendation of the Juba Review Workshop, a wider consultation process was started in July 2008 and completed in October 2008. The process included state level consultation with sector actors, technical working group discussions and a final consultation workshop in Juba. Final drafts of the 14 documents were produced for review at a final National Workshop.

Final National Workshop:The final National Workshop was held in April 2009 in Khartoum under the guidance and the presence of H.E. Eng. Kamal Ali Mohamed, Minister of Irrigation and Water Resources of GONU, Eng. Isaac Liabwel, Undersecretary, Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation of GoSS, Eng. Mohammed Hassan Mahmud Amar, DG of PWC and Eng. Adam Ibrahim, Minister of Physical Planning and Public Utilities of South Darfur State. The 92 workshop participants included representatives of MIWR, MWRI, MOH, PWC, WES, GWWD, Engineering Council, SWCs, SMoH, University of Khartoum, UNICEF, WHO, IOM, ICRC, NGOs, USAID and private sector.

The National Workshop approved the final draft documents for the 14 selected WASH facilities as the national Technical Guidelines for reference by all organizations implementing WASH activities and recommended the following:

Publication and wide distribution of the Guidelines;•Translation of the Guidelines into Arabic and other major Sudanese languages;•Organization of training and advocacy courses/workshops related to the Guidelines;•Adoption of supportive policies, strategies, laws and regulations to ensure best utilization of the •Guidelines;Development of a system for feedback to receive comments from implementing partners for inclusion •in future updates of the Guidelines. MIWR/PWC, MWRI and SWCs were selected as focal points for that purpose.


58

Annex 2

People contacted

At Khartoum levelMr Mohammed Hassan Mahmoud Amar, Director General, PWC1. Mr Eisa Mohammed, National WES Coordinator, WES/PWC2. Mr Mohammed Habib, National Project Coordinator, PWC3. Mr Sampath Kumar, Chief WES Section, UNICEF4. Mr Vishwas Joshi, PO, UNICEF5. Mr Zaid Jurji, PO, UNICEF6. Mr Stanely Hall, SPO, UNICEF7. Mr Fouad Yassa, PO, UNICEF8. Mrs Awatif Khalil, PO, UNICEF9. Mr Samuel Riak, PO, UNICEF10. Dr Isam M. Abdel Magid, Faculty of Engineering, University of Khartoum11. Mr. Bedreldeen Ahmed Ali, Engineering Department, FMOH12.

North Darfur, El Fashier

1. Osman Bukhari Ibrahim SMOH DG Envoronmental Health2. Abdul Azim Ahmed SWC Mechanical Engineer3. Abdella M. Adam WES Drilling Engineer4. Mohammed Mohammedein WES Mechanical Engineer5. Omer Abdurahman Adam GWWD Hydrogeologist6.Nour Eldin Adam WES Surveying Engineer7. Abdella Adam Ibrahim WES Geologist8. Tayalla El Medomi UNICEF Water Engineer9. Mohammed Mohammedein Subi SWC Acting DG & Manager of RW10. Salma Hassan WES Social Mobilzer11. Ahmed Abu Elgasim WES Acting GM 12. Hassan Sheik Nur Oxfam GB Public Health Engineering Coord.13. Jaka Magoma IRC Environmental Health Manager

North Kordofan, El Obeid

1. Hassan Adam Suleiman ACU WES Monitoring Officer2. Ahmed El Abeid RWC Surface Water Section3.Alehmin Ahmed WES Mechanical Engineer4. Saeed Elmahdi WES Programme Manager5. Asia Mahmoud Mohmed ACU WES W Coord. Kordofan Section6. Yassin Abbas NWC, NK RWC Manager7. Mahgoup Dahia WES, NK Mini Water Yard Officer8. Abeer Ali Elnour WES, NK Civil Engineer9. Mutasim Hamad WES, NK Monitoring Officer10. Makin Mohammed Toto WES, NK Drilling Engineer11. Salah Mohammed GWWD Director General


59

South Kordofan

1. Adil Awad Farog SWC Geologist2. Jakob Jebbrel SWC Engineer3. Haidar Ariah Abdel Bari SWC Geologist4. Mohammed Morgan Yhya SWC WES PA5. Gamaa Aziz UNICEF APO6. Fatima Toto SWC Urban Water Management7. Sunaya Zroog SWC Urban Water Management8. Mymona Taha SWC Urban Water Management9. Adam Mohammed Ibrahim SWC Urban Water Management10. Ali Gabaur Ahmad SWC Urban Water Management11. Elzaki Eisa WES Drilling Engineer12. Kamal Bashir SC/USA Watsan13. Osman Elnour SWC DG14. Dr Abdel Rahim Ahmed UNICEF APO15. Hassaballa Hamad SWC Rural Water Management16. Absaida SWC Mechanic17. Awatif Elhag WFP Field Monitor18. Al Amin Shawish Sudan Aid Coordination Officer

People Contacted in Southern Sudan, July 2008

1. Juma Chisto, Operator of Kator Emergency Water Supply, Juba2. Habib Dolas, Member of Watsan committee, Hai Jebel3. Andew Wan Stephen, Member of Watsan committee, Hai Jebel4. Francis Yokwe, Member of Watsan committee, Hai Jebel5. William Ali Jakob, Member of Watsan committee, Hai Jebel6. William Nadow Simon, Member of Watsan committee, Hai Jebel7. Ali Sama, Director General, Rural Water Department, Central Equatoria State (CES)8. Engineer Samuel Toban Longa, Deputy Area Manager, UWC, CES9. Sabil Sabrino, Director General UWC, WBeG10. James Morter, Technician, UWC, Wau 11. Carmen Garrigos, RPO, Unicef Wau12. Sevit Veterino, Director General, RWC, WBeG13. Stephen Alek, Director General, Ministry of Physical Infrastructure (MPI), Warap 14. John Marie, Director of Finance, MPI, Warap State15. Angelo Okol, Deputy Director of O&M, Warap State16. Santino Ohak Yomon, Director, RWSS, Upper Nile State17. Abdulkadir Musse, RPO, Unicef Malakal18. Dok Jok Dok, Governor, Upper Nile State19. Yoanes Agawis, Acting Minister, MPI, Upper Nile State20. Bruce Pagedud, Watsan Manager, Solidarites, Malakal21. Garang William Woul, SRCS, Malakal22. Peter Onak, WVI, Malakal23. Gailda Kwenda, ACF, Malakal24. Amardine Atsain, ACF, Malakal25. Peter Mumo Gathwu, Care, Malakal26. Engineer John Kangatini, MPI, Upper Nile State27. Wilson Ajwek Ayik, MoH, Upper Nile State28. James Deng Akurkuac, Department of RWSS, Upper Nile State29. Oman Clement Anei, SIM


60

30. Abuk N. Manyok, Unicef, Malakal31. Jakob A. Mathiong, Unicef, Malakal32. Emmanuel Badang, UNMIS/RRR33. Emmanuel Parmenas, DG of O&M, MCRD GOSS34. Cosmos Andruga, APO, Unicef Juba


61

Annex 3. Technical Working Group Members

A) At Khartoum level

For Slow Sand Filters1)

Dr Mohammed Adam Khadam, University of KhartoumDr V. Haraprasad, UNICEFMr. Ibrahim Adam, PWCMr Eshetu Abate, UNICEF - Consultant

For Borehole Hand pumps, Hand dug well Hand pumps, Hand dug well Water yards, Mini Water yards 2) and Water yards

Mr. Mohamed Hassan Ibrahim, GWWMr. Mohy Al Deen Mohamed Kabeer, GWWMr. Abd el Raziq Mukhtar, Private ConsultantMr. Mohamed Salih Mahmoud, PWCMr. Mohamed Ahmed Bukab, PWCMr. Mudawi Ibrahim, PWC/WESMr. Yasir Ismail, PWC/WESMr Eshetu Abate, UNICEF - Consultant

For Improved Small Dams3)

Dr. Mohamed Osman Akoud, University of KhartoumProfessor Saif el Deen Hamad, MIWRMr. Mohamed Salih Mohamed Abdulla, PWCMr Eshetu Abate, UNICEF - Consultant

For Improved Haffirs4)

Mr. Mohamed Hassan Al Tayeb, Private ConsultantMr. Hisham Al Amir Yousif, PWCMr. Hamad Abdulla Zayed, PWCMr Eshetu Abate, UNICEF - Consultant

For Drinking Water Treatment Plants, Drinking Water Distribution Networks and Protected Springs & Roof 5) Water Harvesting

Dr Mohamed Adam Khadam, University of KhartoumMr. Burhan Ahmed Al Mustafa, Khartoum State Water Corporation (KSWC)Mr Eshetu Abate, UNICEF - Consultant

For Household Latrines, School Latrines and Rural Health Institution Latrines6)

Mr. Sampath Kumar, UNICEFMr. Fouad Yassa, UNICEFDr. Isam Mohamed Abd Al Magid, Sudan Academy of ScienceMr. Badr Al Deen Ahmed Ali, MOHMs Awatif Khalil, UNICEFMr Eshetu Abate, UNICEF - Consultant


62

B) At Juba level:

For all facilities:

Mr. Nyasigin Deng, MWRI-GOSSMs. Maryam Said, UNICEF- ConsultantDr. Bimal Chapagain, UNICEF- ConsultantMr. Marto Makur, SSMOMs. Jennifer Keji, SSMOMs. Rose Lidonde, SNVMr. Elicad Nyabeeya, UNICEFMr. Isaac Liabwel, MWRIMr. Moris Monson, SC UKMr. Peter Mahal, MWRIMr. Alier Oka, MWRIMr. Emmanuel Ladu, MWRIMr. Menguistu T. Mariam, PACTMr. Manhiem Bol, MWRI-GOSSMr. Eshetu Abate, UNICEF- ConsultantMs. Rose Tawil, UNICEFMr. Mike Wood, EUROPIAN CONSULTMr. Sahr Kemoh, UNICEFMr. John Pangech, MCRDMr. Joseph Brok, MAFMr. Gaitano Victor, MAFDr. Lasu Joja, MOH-GOSSMr. Kees Van Bemmel, MEDAIRMr. Lawrence Muludyang, MHLPUMs. Anatonia Wani, MARFMr. Acuth Makuae, MCRD-GOSSMr. Martin Andrew, RWD/CESMr. Feliciano Logira, RWD/CESMr. Philip Ayliel, MHLPUMr. James Adam, MWRI


63

Annex 4: Selected bibliography and references

Linking Technology Choice with Operation and Maintenance for low-cost Water Supply and Sanitation, 1. Operation & Maintenance Group, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, World Health Organization, IRC International Water and Sanitation CentreLow-cost rural water supply and sanitation, a design manual for the government of Baluchistan, 2. Pakistan - UNICEF Technical guidelines on rural sanitation, Republic of Mozambique, Ministry of Public Works and 3. Housing, National Directorate of Water, First National Water Development Project, March 2005.Engineering in Emergencies, second edition 2002, Jan Davis and Robert Lambert4. WES Programme, Low-cost Sanitation Options, Draft Paper, UNICEF5. Cost estimates for the construction of school latrines, household latrines in W. Nile State, Draft 6. paper, IRC and Oxfam’s cost estimates of latrines for humanitarian programme in Darfur States, 2006 7. Sphere Minimum Standards8. Technical guidelines on twin pit pour flush latrines, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of 9. India and Regional Water & Sanitation Group – South Asia UNDP/World Bank Water & Sanitation Program


64

Contact Addresses for Feedback by WASH Sector Partners

Mr Mohammed Hassan Mahmud Amar Director GeneralPublic Water CorporationMinistry of Irrigation and Water ResourcesEl Sahafa South-Land Port WestP.O. Box 381, KhartoumTel: +249 (0)83 417 699Fax:+249 (0)83 416 799Email: [email protected]

Eng. Isaac LiabwelUnder SecretaryMinistry of Water Resources and Irrigation (MWRI)Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS)Hai el Cinema, JubaPhone: Office: +249 811 823557Cellular: +249 912 328686Email:: [email protected]

Mr Sampath KumarChief, WASH SectionWater and Environmental Sanitation (WASH) SectionUNICEF Sudan Country OfficeHouse 74, Street 47, Khartoum 2P.O.Box 1358 – Khartoum - SudanTel.: +249 1 83471835/37 ext 350Fax: +249 1 834 73461Mobile: +249 912390648E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Stephen Maxwell DonkorChief, WASH SectionWater and Environmental Sanitation (WASH) SectionUNICEF SCO, JubaSouthern SudanTel. : +249 126 537693E-mail: [email protected]


65

Technical Guidelines for the Construction and Management of School LatrinesA Manual for Field Staff and Practitioners

public water corporationmiwr-gonu mwri-goss...

Documents