You are on page 1of 20

recode

on site sanitation case study 01: Passive Sand and Wood Chip Filter Installation Costs
New: $28,000 + with installation (single family property)

Retrofit: $20 - 25,000 with existing septic system Operations & Maintenance: $200-300/year another $100/year for sampling. Pumps have about a 10 year life, approx $1,000/ pump. *All numbers based on prices from Lombardo Associates April 2012 Land Required: 100 sq ft

Diagram of Nitrex passive sand and wood chip filter system. Lombardo Associates.

How it Works

In Use: Combined toilet and wash water goes to a septic tank followed by a sand filter and a wood chip filter. The Nitrex version of this system performed the best of all the systems studied in the La Pine National Demonstration Project. User Responsibilities: Same as a septic tank; avoid harsh cleaning products such as bleaches, antibacterial soaps, and drain cleaners. Operations and Maintenance: Pump and spray nozzles need an annual checkup by a professional. The oldest system has been in service 20 years, but Lombardo Associates, manufacturer of the Nitrex, claims they will last 40 years. Sampling and monitoring the first two years is recommended by manufacturer and adds $2,000 to the cost of installation.

Treatment

Meets the La Pine Limits: • <10 mg/L Total Nitrogen with a 99% probability (Oakley 1). • Mean BOD5 of 2.8 mg/L (Rich 5-9). • Mean Phosphorus 4.8 • mg/L (La Pine 5-9).

Benefits

• Requires no user change. • Works with existing flush toilets. • Wood chip and sand filter work passively, requiring no energy • After wood chip filter, effluent could be treated for reuse on site. • Nitrex patent recently expired in March 2012, price could go down substantially.

Wood chips are used as the filter medium to facilitate denitrification. Sarah Cody 2008.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 01: Passive Sand and Wood Chip Filter

Installing in Oregon
Transporting filters (containers holding properly sized wood chips) is one of the major expenses for passive media filters like Nitrex. (Lombardo Associates 2000).

Two houses built near sensitive wetlands with shallow groundwater built a shared treatment system to manage 660 gallons per day. Total cost was 40% less than the sand mound systems specified for both sites. System includes septic tank to biofilter to wood chip filter to UV disinfection and reuse through drip irrigation. Solids from septic tank are pumped out as needed.. (Lombardo Associates 2011).

Requires Commercial-scale Permit Homeowners may install a Passive Sand and Woodchip Filter under a WPCF permit designed for largescale facilities. This is prohibitively expensive, onerous, and not designed for homeowners. No systems have been installed since the La Pine National Demonstration Project. Not a Stand Alone Alternative for Onsite Treatment Because the filters are added after a septic tank or Alternative Treatment Technology (ATT), a wood chip filter is not a stand-alone system. There is no available path for permitting proprietary components of a “treatment train” at either a state level or through independent verification bodies such as the NSF or ANSI. Other Paths Towards Approval On Indefinite Hold 304-071-0135 states that the Department does not intend to approve non-NSF 40 systems, and refers to the EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV), which is operated in collaboration with NSF. The program has been running since 1995 and has approved 2 systems, one of which is owned an operated by a member of the ETV board (EPA 1). There is effectively no path forward for small manufacturers, nor does the DEQ plan to make one; during the December 2011 meeting of the Onsite Program Technical Review Committee, the committee decided not to explore alternative methods of certification. No Process for Approving Site-Built Wood Chip Filter Systems No Nitrex systems have been installed in Oregon since field testing in La Pine from 2000-2005. The manufacturer cites cost as the major barrier to installation. There is potential for cost savings if the system was assembled on site with local wood chips and sand. Currently, regulations exist only for Slow Sand Filters and Recirculating Gravel Filters. A non-proprietary Nitrex-style system would have to be written in to existing prescriptive rules.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 01: Passive Sand and Wood Chip Filter
Permeable nitrate barriers manufactured by Nitrex are being used in New Hampshire along the Childs River in New Hampshire to reduce nitrates leaching into the waterway (CICEET 2008). These barriers are not connected to onsite sewage systems, instead, they are trenched in along the river’s edge, intercepting the septic plume in the groundwater and reducing its nitrate load.

Citations
EPA. Environmental Technology Verification Fact Sheet: Building a Scientific Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions. EPA/600/F-08/012. October 2008 (revised May 2) <http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/600f08012.pdf> Accessed 5/2/2012. Lombardo, Pio. Letter from Mary Sue Gilliland, Manager Water Quality Division Oregon DEQ to Pio Lombardo on status of Nitrex installations in Oregon. 12 February 2007. Oakley, Stewart, Arthur Gold, Autumn J Oczkowski. Nitrogen control through decentralized wastewater treatment: Process performance and alternative management strategies. Ecological Engineering. 36(11):1520-1531. November 2010. Oakley, Stewart. Telephone Interview. 11 April. 2012. NSF Wastewater Standards Online <http://www.nsf.org/business/wastewater_certification/standards. asp?program=WastewaterCer#245 > Accessed 4/23/12 Lesikar, B.J., A. Kenimer and D. Gustafson. 2005. Septage-Biosolids Text. in (M.A. Gross and N.E. Deal, eds.) University Curriculum Development for Decentralized Wastewater Management. National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Rich, Barbara. La Pine Demonstration Final Report. 2005. Gross, Mark. Telephone Interview. 12 April. 2012. NOAA/UNH Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET). Effectiveness of Reactive Barriers for Reducing N-Loading. University of New Hampshire, 2008. < http://ciceet.unh.edu/news/releases/spring08_progress_reports/pdf/vallino. pdf>

On-site Sanitation Case Study 01: Passive Sand and Wood Chip Filter Recode 2012 Authors: Molly Danielsson and Mathew Lippincott Project Manager: Melora Golden Funded by the Bullitt Foundation This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License 2012. This document is available from www.RecodeOregon.org

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

recode

on site sanitation case study 02: Dry Toilet and Secondary Composting
Vera Environmental’s “Carousel” Dry Toilet has a rotating platform with 4 chambers. When one chamber is full the carousel is rotated to the next chamber. www.vera.no

How it Works
In Use: Although there are a wide variety of composting toilet systems, the highest user satisfaction is with “batching” models requiring the lowest user maintenance. Vera Environmental’s Carousel is a batching system where a toilet pedestal with a 6-10” tube drops directly into a ventilated composting chamber that is rotated out to process every 3-6 months. Homeowner Responsibilities: Homeowners must periodically add “bulking” or “soak” material consisting of sawdust, straw, wood chips or similar materials at least every two weeks while in use. When full, the composting chamber must be rotated to an empty one. Operations and Maintenance: At the end of the treatment period (1 -5 years), composted humus must be removed and buried 12” near decorative plants or fruit trees. Can the homeowner maintain the system? A Homeowner can empty the composted humus themselves or hire a professional through a service contract.

Installation Costs
New: $1,200-6,000 (EPA 2005) + (2/3 scale septic system) ($5,000 for Carousel from Vera Environmental) Retrofit: Highly variable, depending on the building’s layout, including under-floor space and service access.

Treatment
Meets Lapine Limits: No Phosphorus or Nitrogen enters water ways from the toilet. Treated humus meets <200 Fecal Coliforms/ gram (NSF 41), and is considered an extremely low disease risk. Land Application/Disposal: Currently under Building codes, humus from composting toilets can be applied under 12” of soil around ornamentals, or disposed of by licensed septage hauler.

Benefits

• In new construction, dry composting toilets coupled with a graywater only infiltration system are the lowest cost method for meeting the strictest nitrate reduction standards in effluent. • Since no water is used, a household’s water usage will be reduced by 20-40%. • Low energy usage; a small ventilation fan may draw 1-5 watts.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 02: Dry Toilet and Secondary Composting

Installing in Oregon

Not classified as Nitrogen Reducing System Diverting nutrient-rich wastes from water-carried waste systems at its point of generation is the most cost-effective means of preventing onsite nutrient pollution (Mattila 54). Despite this fact, composting toilets are under Building Codes, and are therefore are not recognized as a Nitrogen Reducing Systems by the DEQ. Composting Toilets Permitted Under Building Codes OAR 918-770-0080: Building Codes Division permits installation of NSF-41 approved composting toilets or other designs, subject to board approval. The board does not approve non-NSF-41 approved models (per Terry Swisher). under Onsite, OAR 340-071-0320 Split Waste Method, when a non-water carried toilet system is installed greywater discharge is permitted to 1) existing onsite system, 2) new Onsite system with 2/3rds sized soil absorption system, 3) sewer system. Construction of A Graywater Reuse and Disposal System does not wave this requirement. Non-NSF and Custom Composting Toilets Permitted Under Reach Code Oregon Reach Code: 1307.4 Composting Toilet Systems. Permits the installation of NSF/ANSI approved models as well as site-built and non-NSF/ANSI approved models. This code was written by Recode volunteers Mathew Lippincott and Molly Danielsson. Reach Code places other constraints on renovation to meet energy efficiency guidelines, potentially increasing costs. The Reach Code is new, as of this publication (2012) no examples have been approved under Reach Code.

Citations
Stenstroem, Thor-Axel, Razak Seidu, Nelson Ekane, and Christian Zurbruegg. Microbial Exposure and Health Assessments in Sanitation Technologies and Systems. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm ,2011. <http://www.ecosanres.org/pdf_files/Microbial_ Exposure_&_Health_Assessments_in_Sanitation_Technologies_&_Systems.pdf> National Research Council. Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices. Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2002. Print. p 57. Jenssen, Petter. Ecosan Projects with Norwegian connections. The Norwegian University of Life Sciences. DWA-BMZ-GTZ Symposium, Neue Sanitärkonzepte (ecosan), Eschborn October 26. 2006 Toilets du Monde. Household Dry Toilets: An overview of current theory and practice in various countries, with suggestions for supporting the sector in France. October 2010. Mattila, Harri. Appropriate Management of On-Site Sanitation. Tampere University of Technology. Publication 537. 2005.

On-site Sanitation Case Study 02: Dry Toilet and Composting Recode 2012 Authors: Molly Danielsson and Mathew Lippincott Project Manager: Melora Golden Funded by the Bullitt Foundation This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License 2012. This document is available from www.RecodeOregon.org

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 02: Dry Toilet and Secondary Composting

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

recode

on site sanitation case study 03: Vacuum Flush + Anaerobic Digester

System design example with various discharge options. Diagram by Jetsgroup 2009.

Wostman Ecology Vacuum Flush “EcoVac” uses 0.2 liters per flush.

How it Works
In Use: Flush water and feces and urine are sucked through pipes by a vacuum pump and deposited in a holding tank, anaerobic digester, or other treatment system. User Responsibilities: Same as with flush toilet. Operations & Maintenance: Anaerobic digesters require professional oversight. Vacuum systems are mechanical and require professional servicing.

Installation Costs
New: $1500 for first toilet and 800 for each additional (Dometic 2012). Space required: vacuum pump is located behind each toilet making the toilet slightly larger. Digester takes up as much room as a holding tank. Electricity: 4 Kwh/person/year (Jenssen 2008)

Benefits

• Requires no user change. • Flexible 2” piping for vacuum systems does not have to be laid to grade and can be cheaply retrofitted into existing homes. Toilet and vacuum pumping are more expensive than conventional but piping and installation costs are much lower, becoming economical when two or more households share a system. • Reduces overall household water use by as much as 25%. Vacuum flush toilets use 0.2-1.5 liters of water per flush (Jenssen 28).

Treatment

Meets Lapine Limits if not discharged onsite.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 03: Vacuum Flush Installations in the US and Beyond

Gloskow vacuum station for a vacuum sewer system for a suburban town in Poland. Roedigger Vacuum Systems. roevac.com

Vacuum Toilet Installations

Vacuum sewers were installed for 670 buildings along a sensitive water way along the Rhine with 2 pump stations. Roedigger Vacuum Systems. roevac.com

Vacuum toilets are economical choices for boats, trains, marina and clusters of houses, or small town systems.

Vacuum Sewer Installations

Many cities, including Astoria, OR, install vacuum sewers in areas with frequent flooding, high groundwater, or as a retrofit to an existing system, often connecting them to conventional gravity-drained sewers. A Suburban town outside of Warsaw installed a vacuum sewer system to serve 5,600 of residents outside of town.

Vacuum piping is typically less than 2” in diameter allowing construction to happen in narrow trenches along sidewalks instead of requiring road closures during construction. Roedigger 2007.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 03: Vacuum Flush Installing in Oregon
Plumbing Code Requires Gravity Drainage Where Ever Practicable. Plumbing code 709.0 Vacuum sewage is covered under IAPMO IGC 150-2009, but is not in the Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code. <http://publications.iapmo.org/standards/pub_show_synopsis. asp?doc_id=29> Sewers are Not Permitted Outside Urban Growth Boundary 660-011-0060 Sewer Service to Rural Lands and Rule 11 As vacuum systems are usually cost effective only for 2 or more households, they would classify as “sewer systems” and would not be permitted outside urban growth boundaries without a determination from the DEQ that there is “no practicable alternative” to abate a public health hazard, and the connected structures existed prior to 1998. An Acorn/EVAC vacuum system has been installed at The Wilsonville Women’s Prison and Intake facility (Interpretive Ruling 97-6). http://www.bcd.oregon.gov/programs/plumbing/interps/97-6.pdf Vacuum Toilets Cannot be Connected to Composting System 340-071-0320 Split Waste Method The low-water flush of a vacuum system cannot be connected to a non-water carried treatment system, such as a composting system. Vacuum Flush Effluent is more Concentrated, Possibly Requiring Special Permits Vacuum flush toilets use 1/5 the water of ultra low flow toilets, which means the blackwater is less diluted, potentially lowering treatment costs. However, less diluted blackwater could cause it to be considered higher than residential strength blackwater, requiring an onerous WPCF permit.

Vacuum on demand toilet. Diagram by Jets Group 2005.

Recommended Reading: GIZ 2005 Case Study 001 on Vacuum Toilets and Greywater Recyling in Frankfurt, Germany. www.giz.de

Wostman Ecology Vacuum Flush toilets “Ecovac” with and without urine diversion. Pump is located outside. Pump uses about 4 kwh/year. Uses 0.2 liters/flush.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 03: Vacuum Flush + Anaerobic Digester Anaerobic Digester Explained
(Adapted from Tilley et al 73-74). An Anaerobic Biogas Reactor is a means of treating water carried waste that produces (a) a digested slurry that requires further treatment to be used as a soil amendment and (b) biogas which can be used for energy. Biogas is a mix of methane, carbon dioxide and other trace gasses that can be converted to electricity, light and heat. Also known as ‘biogas plant, anaerobic digester, anaerobic biogas reactor (ABR). Anaerobic digesters are oxygen-less tanks where carbonaceous material is digested by bacteria into methane, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The retention time in the tank ranges from 15 to 60 days depending on temperature and activity of bacteria in the system. Operation and Maintenance: Tank should be stirred weekly to encourage mixing of new waste with old waste. Grit and sand that have settled to the bottom should be removed yearly. Pros & Cons: + Generation of a renewable, valuable energy source + No electrical energy required + Small land area required (most of the structure can be built underground) - Requires expert design, skilled construction and operation oversight. - Gas production below 15°C is not economically feasible - Digested sludge and effluent may still require treatment - Odor control is an issue, as sulfur dioxide has a potent rotten egg smell -Methane is flammable

Illustration by Paolo Monaco for Eawag-Sandec.

Dometic Sanitation. Phone Interview. 1 May 2012. Jenssen, Petter. Ecosan -Projects with Norwegian connections. The Norwegian University of Life Sciences. DWA-BMZ-GTZ Symposium, Neue Sanitärkonzepte (ecosan), Eschborn October 26. 2006 Peter-Fröhlich, Bonhomme, Oldenburg, 2007. “Sanitation Concepts for Separate treatment of Urine, Faeces, and Greywater (SCST)- Results. Berlin: Kompentzzentrum Wasser Berlin. < http://www.susana.org/docs_ccbk/susana_download/2-1364 -scstfinalreport501.pdf> Tilley, Elizabeth, Christoph Lüthi, Antoine Morel, Chris Zurbrügg and Roland Schertenleib. Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies. Dübendorf, Switzerland, Eawag/Sandec: Geneva, Switzerland, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC). 2008. UK portable vacuum systems: http://www.flexiloofirst.co.uk/gallery.php

Citations

On-site Sanitation Case Study 03: Vacuum Flush + Anaerobic Digester Authors: Molly Danielsson and Mathew Lippincott Project Manager: Melora Golden Funded by the Bullitt Foundation This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License 2012. This document is available from www.RecodeOregon.org

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

recode

on site sanitation case study 04: Septic Tank + Urine Diversion

Household with urine diversion and options for treatment after septic. Illustration by Avlopps Guide AB. www.avloppsguiden.se

How it Works
In Use: The toilet bowl is designed for sitting users only. Urine is captured in the front while feces and flush water go to the back. Men cannot stand up to pee, and an additional waterless urinal is recommended.

Installation Costs
New: $12,600-18,600 (installation of toilet, septic tank, urine tank and sand filter) Retrofit: $3,900-6,500 (installation of toilet and urine tank) Operations and Maintenance: $150-300/year for once a year pumping of urine and septic tank. Land Required: 10’ x 10’ (approximate space for a 1,500 to 2,000 gallon tank for a family of 5 *All numbers based on Swedish prices as of 2006 including 25% tax. (Avloppsguiden.se)

User Responsibilities: Instruct small children to sit back on the toilet and not perch on the lip, men should be instructed to either sit down or use the urinal.

Wostman Ecology “EcoDry” urine diverting toilet pedestal. Photo by Wostman Ecology AB.

Operations and Maintenance: Homeowners must rinse urine pipes occasionally (every 3-4 months) with hot water & vinegar to remove mineral buildup from pipes. The system must be pumped out by a professional at regular intervals, based on the size of the holding tank (usually once a year).

Benefits

• Lowest cost retrofit to an existing system to that meets the strictest nitrate reduction standards in effluent. • Can be added to an existing septic system.

Quantity of urine produced by a family of 5 (est. 32 gallons per week) about 1,664 gallons per year (von Muench 2011).

Urinals are recommended since urine diverting toilets require all users to sit to pee. Waterless urinal by Uridan. Photo by Karsten Leimstoll in Germany. www.uridan.com

Treatment can meet La Pine limits.

Treatment

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 04: Septic Tank + Urine Diversion Installation in Europe

Large Installations in Europe
To see case studies of urine diversion installations in Sweden see www.CCB.se Kulloen, Sweden. 250 houses. Tanum, Sweden Elias Fries School, Hylte, Sweden Understnedsjoejden Project, Gebers housing Project, Orhem, Sweden Hakunge, Sweden GTZ Headquarters, Eschborn, Germany SolarCity, Linz, Austria
Photo by C. Werner 2006. Urine applied to crop land outside of Stockholm.

UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 04: Septic Tank + Urine Diversion Installing in Oregon
Receiving Tanks are Permittable with Alarm, Automatic Pumpout to Septic or Sewer under OPSC 710.8, a receiving tank could be installed for urine. This code is not specific to urine tanks, however, and no maintenance or pumpout requirements are in place, complicating regulation of user compliance. Urine Diversion is Not a Nitrogen Reducing System Urine diversion is a brand new technology in North America and is not yet included as a nitrogen reducing system. No Permit Process for Beneficial Reuse of Urine On Site or Off Site Urine is therefore handled as domestic septage, reducing the value of its reuse and therefore increasing maintenance costs.

Photo by Philippe Feiereisen 2009. Urine used to fertilize plants on the right is from an office building in Germany.

Citations
Lesikar, B.J., A. Kenimer and D.Gustafson. 2005. Septage-Biosolids Text. in (M.A. Gross and N.E. Deal, eds.) University Curriculum Development for Decentralized Wastewater Management. National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Oakley, Stewart, Arthur Gold, Autumn J Oczkowski. Nitrogen control through decentralized wastewater treatment: Process performance and alternative management strategies. Ecological Engineering. 36(11):1520-1531. November 2010. NSF Wastewater Standards Online <http://www.nsf. org/business/wastewater_certification/standards. asp?program=WastewaterCer#245 > Accessed 4/23/12 Rich, Barbara. La Pine Demonstration Final Report. 2005.

Urine holding tank in Linz, Austria with a leakage warning system, overflow to sewer, and fitting for pumpout by pumper truck (source: Otterwasser GmbH).

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 04: Septic Tank + Urine Diversion 80% of total nitrogen from a house is in urine.

Citations
Lesikar, B.J., A. Kenimer and D.Gustafson. 2005. Septage-Biosolids Text. in (M.A. Gross and N.E. Deal, eds.) University Curriculum Development for Decentralized Wastewater Management. National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR. Oakley, Stewart, Arthur Gold, Autumn J Oczkowski. Nitrogen control through decentralized wastewater treatment: Process performance and alternative management strategies. Ecological Engineering. 36(11):1520-1531. November 2010. NSF Wastewater Standards Online <http://www.nsf. org/business/wastewater_certification/standards. asp?program=WastewaterCer#245 > Accessed 4/23/12 Rich, Barbara. La Pine Demonstration Final Report. 2005. On-site Sanitation Case Study 04: Septic Tank + Urine Diversion Recode 2012 Authors: Molly Danielsson and Mathew Lippincott Project Manager: Melora Golden Funded by the Bullitt Foundation This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Un-

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

recode

on site sanitation case study 05: Portable Dry Toilets Costs
Installation* New: $100-120/week rental (generally 20% more expensive than chemical toilets because of increased cost from specialized equipment. Price could go down if scaled up)

Biocappi portable dry toilets in Yverdon, Switzerland, June 2011. Photo by Molly Danielsson.

How it Works
In Use: Underneath toilet seat is a 30-60 gallon container for dry collection of excreta and carbon materials. Urinals are provided to capture urine in 55 to 550 gallon containers on palettes. Containers are capped and driven to a municipal composter for composting in managed windrows, managed on private land in windrows, or brought to a biogas digester. User Responsibilities: Toilet users are expected to cover each deposit with carbon material like wood chips or sawdust. Operations and Maintenance: Service providers must bring enough carbon material to site and periodically add carbon to maintain dry conditions in the holding tanks to prevent exposed feces or urine. A ramp or crane are recommended to lift containers on to flat bed trucks for transport. Load out is considerably lighter than chemical portable toilets because liquid is not added. Can the homeowner do it or is a professional needed? Professional service contract required for removal of holding tanks.

Retrofit: A conventional portable toilet shell in Wisconsin is currently modified and sold in Germany for dry collection. Land Required: Same as chemical portable toilet Treatment Can it meet La Pine limits? Yes

Benefits

• Collecting excrement without water lowers treatment costs, energy use and creates a nutrient rich fertilizer. • Renting portable dry toilets is a profitable means for dry toilet installers to diversify their income. • Provides an educational opportunity for people to try out dry toilets. • Urine from urinals could be applied directly to land as a fertilizer

Inside “1m3”s portable dry stall in Lausanne, Switzerland, 2011. Photo by 1m3.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 05: Portable Dry Toilets Implementation in Europe

“1m3”s custom built portable dry stalls in Lausanne, Switzerland, 2011. Photo by

Biocappi portable dry stall and urinal area in Yverdon, Switzerland, June 2011. Photo by Molly Danielsson.

Enforcement & Monitoring
to come

Portable Dry Toilet Providers in France
In 2009 France changed their on-site sanitation regulations to permit dry toilets. Between 3,000 and 6,000 homes are equipped with dry toilets. 60 organizations provide dry toilets, 40 of which also provide dry toilet rental services. “This type of activity [portable dry toilets] has developed significantly over recent years, building a high level of public awareness around dry toilets” (Toilets du Monde 2010). Urine must go to household water treatment systems. Nonprofessionals can manage the system. France’s decree ordered for a code to outline compost processing, but code has not been developed yet (Toilets du Monde 86). Currently providers take compost to municipal composters, biogas digesters or create windrows on private land for large events. Another market for portable dry toilets has been residential renovations. Composting toilets by Biolan like those featured to the right are installed in homes temporarily during construction. Homeowners cite their desire to have an indoor bathBiolan Urine diverting dry toilet, $1000 room instead of using a porUSD Photo by Biolan.fi

Since France’s on-site rules changed in 2009 to include dry toilets 40 companies are providing dry portable toilets.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 05: Portable Dry Toilets Implementation in Oregon

Modified chemical portable toilet housing for urine separating dry toilet, dry urinal and reservoir for wood shavings to cover feces.

1m3 opeartes portable urinals in Geneva for bars and the City of Geneva’s summer stage. The urinal drains to a 330 gallon international bulk container. Photo by Jonathan Fernandez 2010.

Installing in Oregon
Regulations permitting the system: Current Regulations Permit Dry Collection but Not Composting Unclear where dry bulking material and excreta can be composted or what facilities are set up to aerobically compost such material. Barriers to system: Permittable Treatment Facilities Don’t Permit Composting In Oregon, dry composting toilets are regulated as if they are septage (liquid wastewater) and require treatment. Treatment facili-

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012

on site sanitation case study 05: Portable Dry Toilets

Biocappi portable dry toilet stall in Yverdon, Switzerland, June 2011. Photo by Molly Danielsson.

Natural Event portable dry toilet stalls at large festivals in Australia. Photo by Hamish Skermer.

Citations
Bigot, Emmanuelle. Biocappi Owner. Personal Interview. 24 June 2011. Fernandez, Jonathan. 1m3 Co-owner. Personal Interview. 8 July 2011. Intestinale- Dry Portable Toilet Association of France www.rae-intestinale.org Toilets du Monde. Household Dry Toilets: An overview of current theory and practice in various countries, with suggestions for supporting the sector in France. October 2010. On-site Sanitation Case Study 06: Portable Dry Toilets Recode 2012 Authors: Molly Danielsson and Mathew Lippincott Project Manager: Melora Golden Funded by the Bullitt Foundation This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License 2012.

recode: legalizing sustainability

last updated July 2012