Technical Specifications CM 1600 TSS
Model CM Pressure max PSI Cleaning Power Flow Rate max Gpm Electrical Rating V Hz

1600 TSS Packaging

Packaging Packaging dimensions Unit dimensions Gross weight Palette quantity 40ft CTN quantity
4 color glossy carton 10.23 x 11.81 x H 23.6 in. 9.8 x 10.35 x H 22.4 in. 31.5 lb 48 pcs 960 pcs

Pump Description

Aluminum pump, with 3 stainless Steel pistons, asynchronous motor (no brush), for continuous duty with Thermal protection. Accessories Pressure regulation min 400 PSI - max 1600 PSI TSS Total Stop System: extends pump & motor life Turbo Nozzle VORTEX Trolley Gun and hose assembly 23 ft Lance with spray nozzle Foaming nozzle with detergent bottle Equipped with GFCI Optional Fixed Brush Rotary Brush

Product Description

Powerful cold water high pressure cleaner with pressure regulation (min 400 PSI - max 1600 PSI), Total Stop System to extend the pump and motor life. Supplied with trolley for a more comfortable transport. Equipped with foaming nozzle and detergent tank. Includes two lances, the Turbo Nozzle VORTEX to improve the washing power on stubborn dirt and an adjustable nozzle to be used in any cleaning situation. Ideal for cleaning garden furniture, driveways, house siding, cars, motorcycles, tractors and boats.
Sistema USA 1520 Yokel RD Evansville, IN 47711- USA

Tel. 9551 Fax. 9399

e-mail: info@sistemausa.com web: www.sistemausa.com

Preface

Kristalina Georgieva
"Nothing has really changed in urban sanitation in the last 150 years or so; it is one of the least technologically advanced fields." Therefore, the goal of this publication to set out new, environmentally sustainable, approaches to sanitation is most welcome. Ecological sanitation solutions, as promoted by the authors, make inherent sense, especially in the many water-stressed and resource-poor regions of the world. As the world has an annual deficit of over 160 billion tons of water, and as industrial demand for water diverts water away from irrigation, the savings of 30-40% in consumption of average daily clean water, achievable through sustainable sanitation, is a huge benefit. At the same time, sustainable sanitation can improve poor soils and provide valuable nutrients for food production. As presented by the authors, economics favor this approach, but we need more analytical work. We need to show the high and intensifying environmental costs, still mainly externalized, of traditional sanitation. We also need to deepen our understanding of the social and cultural factors that determine the success or failure of sanitation systems. In addition, we need to explore why orthodox water and sanitation professionals still have so little understanding and acceptance of sustainable sanitation. This book addresses some of the main concerns of emerging environmental strategy at organizations such as the World Bank, importantly poverty alleviation, assisted by sustainable, healthpromoting sanitation systems. Implementation of more sustainable solutions would better take into account long-term environmental considerations, as well as community-driven approaches to development.
Professor Doug Webster, Stanford University 5

Introduction

Abby A. Rockefeller and Robert Goodland
What is Environmental Sustainability in Sanitation? 1. The Unsustainability of Sewage For the reasons outlined below, the present approach to the disposal of human wastes central collection and treatment of sewage is unsustainable. Nevertheless, the fever to sewer the globe seems to be growing. For the sake of environmental sustainability, we must stop mixing human excreta with drinking water, then collecting and further worsening this mixture with industrial and non-point source wastes, then "treating" the mixture, then polluting water, air, or soil by efforts to dispose of the poisonous sludge created by the treatment process. Such practices may have appeared affordable decades ago. Now population densities, urbanization, and pervasive pollution of nearly all water bodies show the unsustainability of the system. Though U.S. sewerage construction has been, until the last few years, the largest construction grants program in U.S. history, this expenditure of billions of dollars does not begin to reflect the full environmental and financial cost to society of this unsustainable effort to manage waste. This paper calls for a fundamental rethinking of the human waste problem if the world is to reverse its decline from the current unsustainable sanitation practices to approaches that would promote environmental sustainability. 2. Economic Costs of Sewerage In central collection and treatment of sewage, 80%-90% of the total costs goes to transportation (e.g., laying of pipes: water is sometimes conveyed several hundred kilometers from water supply to users to sewage treatment plant), land acquisition for reservoirs, and involuntary resettlement of people to make room for these reservoirs. About 10%7

development of communities is not bound to the rigid grid of sewer lines; pollution problems can be dealt with piecemeal where they really exist, and first where they are worst; capital as well as maintenance costs are substantially lower for onsite systems than they are for central sewer systems; most important, the problem of water pollution becomes solvable instead of merely transferable. Second, in cities and towns that are already sewered, implement a backoff-the-sewer program. That is, begin the process of intercepting and recovering resources the constituents of so-called "waste" as close to the source as possible. This does not mean closing existing central treatment facilities now; rather, it means implementing a policy of mandates to fund the use of existing technologies that can accomplish separation, recovery, and recycling at source. The aim is gradually to reduce the range and quantity of random materials entering the sewage stream, in order gradually to decrease the burden on central treatment facilities and, thereby, the volume of sludge produced. This back-offthe-sewers program includes the following: Do not extend sewer lines. Instead, funds now allocated for the extension of sewer lines should be saved for implementation of systematic source reduction, source separation, and resource recovery technologies. Upgrade the level of treatment in those plants where immediate protection of the priority recipient body of water is deemed worth the environmental damage to be incurred by the increased production of toxic sludge. Implement new programs of industrial point-source separation, and enforce those that exist. Because adequate data concerning industrial processes are available, it is comparatively easy to apply
specific source separation techniques to industrial wastes. It is also relatively easy for regulatory agencies to monitor and control industrial discharges. Beginning at the peripheries of sewered communities whose central treatment facilities are already overloaded, install composting equipment designed to convert to humus, on-site, all human excreta. This would intercept most organic and nutrient "waste" materials at their source, thus avoiding the problems characteristic of all efforts to remove them afterwards. 8.2 On-site Separation and Resource Recovery Technologies Many technologies exist and have been in use long enough to be well understood which represent definite improvements over either septic systems or pit latrines from the point of view of sustainability. The most advanced in this respect is the combination of composting toilet and separated greywater treatment. Besides making sewer- avoidance possible, this approach makes it possible for all the resources involved urine, feces, food scraps, washwater, and all the soaps and other "pollutants" in washwater to remain in the nutrient cycles. The excreta is stabilized before removal from the composting unit and then recycled back, odorless and safe, to agriculture. The washwater is used for irrigation of trees, shrubs, and gardens around the dwelling, in which process it will be cleaned by topsoil and then replenish groundwater. In this nutrient-cycling configuration, todays damaging path of sewage creation, central collection and treatment and the resultant production of sludge, can be avoided altogether. Such genuinely sustainable technologies should be systematically supported by education and training programs, as well as by development money for mass installation, both in remediation and in new construction. 8.3 Getting the Price of Water Right Charging the true value will necessarily tend to make the more sustainable technologies more attractive to governments and to

In the United States Federal Register (Vol. 55, No. 218/November 9, 1990), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says of sludge: The chemical composition and biological constituents of the sludge depend upon the composition of the wastewater entering the treatment facilities and the subsequent treatment processes. Typically, these constituents may include volatiles, organic solids, nutrients, diseasecausing pathogenic organisms (e.g., bacteria, viruses, etc.), heavy metals and inorganic ions, and toxic organic chemicals from industrial wastes, household chemicals, and pesticides. This short list of what sludge may include is but a sampling from the enormous list of constituents that can actually be present in it. For instance, of the 100,000 or so organic and inorganic chemicals produced and used in industrialized nations, a huge number end up in the sewers. One thousand new chemicals are produced every year and are added to the cocktail of synthetic substances affecting life processes. Those pollutants that are put in the sewers and removed from the wastewater by the treatment process will end up in the sludge. There are the heavy metals which, though they are micro-nutrients crucially needed in tiny amounts for growth of life, are toxic to life when they exceed the boundaries firmly established over the eons during which the cells of life evolved. There are organochlorine estrogen mimickers, the best known of which are DDT, chlordane, alphahexachlorocyclohexane, 2,4,D, PCBs, and dioxin. There are halogenated aliphatic (chain) hydrocarbons, aromatic (ring) hydrocarbons, chloroand nitro-aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates, halogenated ethers, and phenols. There are the ubiquitous APEs or alkylphenol ethoxylates, the surfactants in the detergents of home and industry the biodegradable detergents which when they break down in the treatment plant, become estrogen mimickers and lethal to fish. There is radioactive matter from hospitals. All of these are destructive to life processes (Reutergrdh 1966). Attitudes toward sludge this heterogeneous product of wastewater treatment processes and toward the disposition of it have a

exported meat were included in the analysis. (See Table 2.) As economies become increasingly integrated, and if import dependence grows, the volume of crop nutrients crossing national borders will rise. For net food exporters, the nutrient deficit is covered by using fertilizer. But even net food importers who are accumulating nutrients from natural sources often resort to heavier than necessary fertilizer use because they do not recycle organic wastes, or because getting organics back to farms is too expensive or difficult.26 Research from the mid-1980s that focused on a larger set of commodities gives an idea of the net regional flows of nutrients. Tracking nutrients in 15 sets of foods, including grains, researcher G.W. Cooke found a large net shift out of the Americas and Oceania and toward the rest of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, and the former Soviet Union. (See Table 3.) Perhaps more remarkable was the relative imbalance (inflows compared to outflows) for each region. The smallest relative imbalance was found in Asia, which nevertheless imported four times as many nutrients in food as it exported. North and Central America, by contrast, exported 76 tons of nutrients for every one it imported. Cookes data demonstrate that nutrients in food flow across regions in highly skewed quantities.27 A heavy flow of nutrients in food into a nation does not mean that its farm soils are well supplied, however. Africa is a case in point. The continent takes in six times more nutrients in food than it sends out, but the soils of many African farms are steadily losing nutrients, thus exacerbating their need for imported fertilizer. Nutrients in food imports (like nutrients in domestic supplies of food) do not make their way to farm soils, but wind up instead in landfills or at the bottom of rivers or bays. Thus, even net nutrient importers turn to fertilizer to replenish their soils, or as in many African countries watch soil fertility slowly decline.28 The use of manufactured fertilizer is the standard way to raise soil fertility in much of the world, and it is what allows large imbalances in food nutrient flows to be ignored. But fertilizer is often applied more liberally than necessary for plant growth (Sub-Saharan Africa is a notable exception), usually to ensure that crops are not underfed. Indeed, in the

common, application of sludge to agricultural land is also controversial; sewage typically includes industrial as well as household wastes, and often contains heavy metals, toxic organic matter, and pathogens that are dangerous to human or environmental health. Thus the growth in recycling of human wastes is not always a positive trend.31 In many countries, municipal solid waste is a readily available but largely untapped source of nutrients and organic matter that could enrich soils. Organic material accounts for more than a third of urban wastes in industrialized countries and well over half in many developing countries. Only a small portion of this material is returned to soils: OECD member states composted just over one tenth of their organic wastes in the early 1990s. In developing countries, the potential for recycling is also largely unrealized.32 Greater reuse of organic matter on farms will not eliminate the need for outside sources of nutrients. Extensive nutrient losses are inevitable. The share of nitrogen in manure or sewage that is returned to the atmosphere through volatilization, for example, can be large even as much as 50 percent (although these losses can be minimized through careful management of wastes). In addition, the high-yielding crop varieties in use today require more fertilizer than native varieties did. Still, reuse of organic matter can reduce the need for manufactured fertilizer while building soil fertility and health. In the process it can also help solve a surprisingly wide array of problems, from leaching and erosion to waste disposal.33 Composting Urban Wastes The worlds cities generate tons of natural wealth daily in the organic garbage food scraps, yard trimmings, and paper wastes that every household and many businesses and institutions throw away. This garbage is rich in organic matter an essential ingredient for healthy soils and it contains a modest supply of plant nutrients. Instead of exploiting this resource, however, most cities are intent on burying or burning it, or dumping it into rivers, lakes, or the sea. But as the benefits of reusing such material become evident, more cities are reclaiming it. To
do so, they are turning to an ancient practice composting as a natural way to prepare the waste for reuse. All organic materials contain both organic matter and nutrients. But working raw organic materials directly into the soil is not always the best way to exploit its organic matter and release its nutrients. Nutrients in materials that decompose slowly, for example, are locked up and unavailable for plant use. And in some soils, decaying organic matter can tie up soil nitrogen that would otherwise fuel plant growth. Fortunately, organic material can be converted through composting to a stabilized product that builds soils and releases nutrients in a steady and environmentally healthy way. Composting is a several-month-long process in which bacteria, worms, and other organisms feast on piles of carbon-rich matter and digest it, leaving behind humus, a rich, stable medium in which roots thrive. Worked into farm soils, humus builds soil structure and provides a productive environment for plants and essential soil organisms. The ingredients for compost can come from a variety of sources. Food scraps, yard trimmings, paper, and sewage are all compostable, but most of this material is currently discarded. Food scraps and yard trimmings alone account for more than a third of the municipal waste flow in industrialized countries and well over half in many developing countries, which can afford fewer throwaway items. (Low-income countries have relatively small waste flows, but a large share of these flows is organic waste.) Yet, like OECD member states, most countries return only a small portion of this material to soils. (See Table 5.)34 If paper is included in the analysis, the compostable share of municipal solid waste jumps to more than 50 percent in industrial countries. Paper is best recycled into paper, not compost, but under certain conditions it is appropriate for composting. Where organic material is deficient in carbon, for example, paper can be added to raise its level. And when the market for recycled paper is saturated, composting paper can help to maintain the value of recycled paper. Had surplus paper been composted in 1996, when recycling centers were inundated, it would have stabilized

reacceptance of the ancient appreciation of organic material will be a large step in the direction of building sustainable cities and farms.
3. The Sewage Scam: Should Sludge Fertilize Your Vegetables? Laura Orlando
Since the early 1990s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working with the waste management industry and municipalities to establish sewage sludge, the semi-solid waste byproduct from municipal sewage treatment plants, as a safe fertilizer for application on land. But a growing number of people backed by environmental, health, agriculture, and food safety organizations are crying foul. They say sludge is toxic and must stay out of life cycles and thus off the soil. They say the stakes are too high to wait and see if the EPA can pick up the pieces when its sludge policy comes crashing down and leaves in its wake a health and ecological disaster. Municipal sewage treatment plants collect the domestic waste of over 75% of the U.S. population, at a cost of over $15 billion per year to local ratepayers. These publicly owned treatment works also collect the private industrial waste from commercial enterprises and factories. In 1992 alone, local governments spent $20 billion on sanitary sewers and sewage treatment facilities. That same year, corporations collecting and disposing of the byproducts from these facilities earned $352 million. Since 1970, it has cost U.S. taxpayers over $100 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants and extend the coverage of public treatment facilities to more households and industries. Sewers and sewage treatment plants are big business. They are expensive to build and to maintain. No one wants to add to the price tag the landfilling of sludge, because it is the American taxpayer that will have to pay the piper. So call it a fertilizer and spread it on land. It's the cheapest option and, at first glance, the most environmentally benign and media savvy solution to an enormous problem.
For the EPA, the trouble with sludge is twofold: first, the near doubling of sewers and therefore doubling of sludge as a result of the 1972 Clean Water Act; and second, the 1988 Congressional ban on ocean dumping. Municipalities have enormous quantities of this material and the EPA is in charge of regulating where it can go. For the rest of us, the trouble with sludge starts with the flushing of industrial tanks and ends with an unpredictable potpourri of chemicals, nutrients, bacteria, fungi and heavy metals. Eastman Kodak, Monsanto, Dupont, ITT, Procter and Gamble, Sun Chemical, Ciba-Geigy, Upjohn Co, James River Paper Co., 3M, the garage down the street, your neighbor's paint shop, your toilet and millions of other industries and households are connected to the network of sewers that cover this nation. Treatment plants have various degrees of sophistication, though most in this country have the capacity for what is called secondary treatment. Sewers bring to the treatment plants whatever domestic, industrial, and commercial sources pour, flush or dump into their drains. A combination of biological and mechanical processes render the wastewater "clean," that is, it satisfies federal pollution regulations. What can be extracted from the wastewater is either hauled away in trucks to landfills or is found in the sludge. There is no magic here. What goes in has to come out. The better the treatment process is for the water, the worse the quality of the sludge. The federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) attempts to keep track of toxins in the United States. The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group, in its 1996 report "Dishonorable Discharge: Toxic Pollution of America's Waters," used TRI data to estimate that 1.5 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were transferred to public treatment facilities between 1990 and 1994. 450 million pounds ended up in water bodies from the discharged "treated" wastewater. The rest over one billion pounds of chemicals are in the sludge, were broken down, or evaporated into the air. The Environmental Working Group believes that their numbers are "drastically underestimated."

Future Trends

Wherever the word sanitation has been used, it has been associated with the efforts of government agencies and non-profit public health organizations. This is changing. Though sanitation has not lost its public character, it is increasingly being pushed out of the realm of public finance and stewardship in developing countries. Without laws and policies to drive sustainable practices, the private sector will do no better than governments or public institutions in providing sanitation that meets the criteria for sustainability. Developing the policy and technical infrastructure that will make sustainable sanitation possible is the topic of this section. In his essay "Recycling Organic Waste: From Urban Pollutant to Farm Resource," Gary Gardner wrote: "The baseline precept for organic matter management is this: in a fully sustainable world, all organic flows must cycle." Organic flows are not respected in current practices, but future trends may be forced in that direction, as soil health declines and population numbers increase. Scarcity of clean water, limits to capital expenditures on sanitation, and public health threats may also move attitudes and practices into a more sustainable realm. But it is not more failures we are hoping for: it is innovation, wisdom, and the political will that will make it possible for sustainable sanitation to be made available to all people, regardless of place or income level. Small projects have demonstrated sanitation systems that are culturally appropriate, locally responsible, and functionally sustainable. Bringing these efforts to scale will require replacing the engineering and financial infrastructure that supports sewerage with one that supports ecological innovations in waste treatment. Undoing practices that threaten to harm human health or the environment and rebuilding sanitation infrastructure from a sustainability orientation is the challenge. Sanitation that is sustainable spends the minimal amount of energy and resources with the least loss of useable matter to contain and convert it to its usable form in agriculture. Evaluating any given sanitation system calls for a survey of energy and material inputs to useable and un88
useable outputs. How can we decide which is the optimal sanitation system for a given place? By using the concept of entropy a concept derived from the second law of thermodynamics to measure the relationship between waste (human and industrial), the processes and methods used to treat it, and its final disposition. Entropy is a tool that can measure natural resources, energy, capital, and labor inputs and evaluate outputs. Sustainable sanitation utilizes low entropy systems, which minimize inputs and maximize useful outputs. Future trends in sanitation bode well if entropy becomes a consideration in policy and planning. In this final section of the book, Abby Rockefeller looks at policy. Laura Orlando gives an outline of what could be done on a global scale and what is being done at the local level to challenge unsustainable sanitation practices. In the last chapter, Stephen Latham explores the role of microcredit in water supply and sanitation.

readily available, it is easy to apply specific source separation techniques to industrial wastes. It is, correspondingly, relatively easy for regulatory agencies to monitor industrial discharges. The problem is political mustering the political will to oblige each industry to pay for the collection systems and the processing systems for all the chemicals used or produced by that industry that are deemed toxic or otherwise harmful to the environment. 4. Institute a ban on the use in consumer goods of substances that are toxic or otherwise damaging to the environment. Such legislation should include mandatory reuse of toxic materials that don't themselves constitute part of consumer products, but are used in industrial processes. 5. Prohibit the use of garbage disposals. Using water to transport food wastes is as irrational as using water to transport human excreta or industrial wastes. Water should be used only for drinking and for washing. 6. Beginning at the periphery of sewered communities whose central treatment facilities are already overloaded, install composting systems designed to convert to humus on-site organic toilet "wastes" and food residues from kitchens. This would intercept the great bulk of organic "waste" materials at their source, preventing them from ever entering the sewage stream. Crucial to this element of the "back-off-thesewer" plan is recognition that the products of the on-site composting toilet can and should be treated as useful, recyclable resources. 7. Remembering that centralized treatment of sewage creates the worst land-use conditions, start the necessary legislative work to develop environmentally sound land-use planning policies. This means putting an end to using septic systems as the de facto method of controlling development in unsewered areas. Conclusion
Central collection and "treatment" of sewage can never solve the problem of water pollution. It will only create ever more complex pollution problems. Sludge, the product of the latest bad technocratic choice in a long sequence of bad technocratic choices, will, if permitted to be passed off as a "fertilizer," inevitably have disastrous effects both on the agricultural soils to which it is applied and on the ecosystems connected to those soils. Biologically based on-site pollution-prevention and recycling technologies are available now. These should become a federally funded choice for communities in the United States. To implement such a sewer avoidance program will require amending the U.S. Reauthorization Bill of the Clean Water Act.
5. Sanitation for the Twenty-First Century: Building Infrastructure

Laura Orlando

Why is it so hard to build sustainable sanitation systems? Do an Internet search and you will find hundreds of web sites on the topic. Volumes of well-researched papers and technical documents on sanitation have been published by organizations like the International Reference Centre for Waste Disposal, the World Bank, UNICEF, and the United Nations Development Program. Conferences are frequent. Experts abound. Still, we cannot get it right. Part of the problem is the lumping together of water and sanitation. It makes sense that the names of the two are spoken in the same breath, since health and hygiene are related to both. But water always steals the show. It is sexier. No talk of feces or urine or odors or cultural preferences for cleansing. Delivering the product water is all science and no art. Measuring success in its delivery is straightforward. You see water when the spigot is turned on. Sanitation, on the other hand, is about toilets (by toilet, I mean the containment and treatment system too). You can throw hand-washing and hygiene in there, but it is essentially about keeping excreta particularly feces and the pathogens that they can carry out of people's stomachs. It is a serious problem. The United Nations Development Program has declared that 3.3 billion people still lack proper sanitation. Proper here means a reduced risk of immediate disease. It means keeping out of our stomachs what comes out of our bodies and gets transported either via drinking water, food, hands, or flies. People get sick, some die, especially young children, from not having access to sanitary disposal of excreta.

The next step: going to scale The 1997 Microcredit Summit was the first step in a nine-year campaign to reach 100 million of the world's poorest families with credit and other financial services by 2005. Going to scale in microcredit will require escalating from the current numbers reached, approximately 20 million borrowers, to the goal of the Summit, 100 million families, in less than 9 years. According to Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank, if the Grameen Bank has alone been able to reach 2.1 million
borrowers in Bangladesh in the course of a decade, who is to say the remaining microcredit borrowers cannot be reached by the year 2005? At a minimum, the same declaration of reaching 100 million of the world's poorest families also must be met within the WS&S sector. Invariably, a disproportionate share of those same 100 million families targeted by the microcredit movement because they are extremely poor do not have adequate access to basic WS&S services. In addition, many of these poor who migrate to the cities from rural areas in search of jobs and opportunity eventually end up settling with the rest of the most vulnerable populations in the world, within the peri-urban regions. Clearly, the methods will vary from country to country, from region to region, and even from village to village. But the goal remains the same: targeted efforts to reach the peri-urban poor with basic WS&S services that are sustainable from an economic, health and environmental standpoint. By maximizing coordination between the global microcredit movement and the WS&S sector, the groundwork will be laid to reach as many of those 100 million families as is possible, enabling the beneficiaries to have improved incomes while leading healthier and more productive lives. Working with the microcredit community, the WS&S sector will be able to meet the needs of more people. And in reaching the 100 million families targeted by the microcredit community with water and sanitation, they will not have to worry about where their next clean glass of water is coming from or whether they will have to worry about health hazards associated with inadequate sanitation. In summary, we must build on the health-development link, keeping the following provisions in mind:
The microcredit movement must clearly recognize microcredit as a means of improving the health status and quality of life of the poorest people and the disadvantaged. Extending the provision of basic services conducive to health such as WS&S should be targeted in addition to raising income
Those involved with microcredit must adopt concrete measures to link economic and health objectives in lending operations for vulnerable people (such as those being proposed in this paper, with respect to WS&S provision for the peri-urban poor).105

Share of nutrients in municipal waste is a Worldwatch calculation based on data from OECD, OECD Environmental Data: Compendium 1995 (Paris: 1995), on U.S. waste data from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1995 Update, Executive Summary (Washington, DC: March 1996), on nutrient value of municipal waste from Xin-Tao He, Terry J. Logan, and Samuel J. Traina, Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Selected U.S. Municipal Solid Waste Composts, Journal of Environmental Quality, MayJune 1995, and on fertilizer use from Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO), FAO web site http://www.fao.org. Countries selected were those for which complete data was available. Share of nutrients in human waste does not include the 33 percent of sludge produced in OECD countries that is already applied to land. Share is a Worldwatch calculation based on nutrient value of human waste from E. Witter and J.M. Lopez-Real, The Potential of Sewage Sludge and Composting in a Nitrogen Recycling Strategy for Agriculture, Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 5, 1987; population from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and U.S. Department of Commerce, World Population Profile 1996, and on fertilizer use from FAO, op.cit. this note. OECD, op. cit. note 4. Share is an average of member states reporting rates for the early 1990s. If paper is included in the organic total, the organic share rises to nearly two thirds. Composting toilets from Robert Goodland and Abby Rockefeller, What Is Environmental Sustainability in Sanitation? UNEP-IETC Newsletter, Summer 1996. Teresa Glover, Livestock Manure: Foe or Fertilizer? Agricultural Outlook, June 1996. China from A.E. Johnston, The Efficient Use of Plant Nutrients in Agriculture, (Paris: International Fertilizer Industry Association, 1995); 23 states from Nora Goldstein, The State of Garbage in America, Biocycle, April 1997; United States from National Research Council, Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996); Europe from Peter Matthews, ed., A Global Atlas of Wastewater Sludge and Biosolids Use and Disposal (London: International Association on Water Quality, 1996) and Peter Matthews, Director of Innovation, Anglian Water, Cambridgeshire, U.K., letter to author, 24 June 1997. Nitrogen fixation from Peter M. Vitousek et al., Human Alteration of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Causes and Consequences, Ecological Issues, February 1997; fossil-fuel burning and cultivation of nitrogen-fixing crops are the other human sources of nitrogen fixation. Still other human activitiesthe burning of forests, wood fuel, and grasslands; draining of wetlands; and clearing of land for cropsrelease

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Production, Supply, and Distribution (PS&D), electronic database, Washington, DC, updated October 1996; Table 1 based on data in USDA, op. cit. this note.
USDA, op. cit. note 23. USDA, op. cit. note 23.
Ten percent calculated from data in USDA, op. cit. note 23; Table 2 based on data in USDA, op. cit. note 23.
G.W. Cooke, The Intercontinental Transfer of Plant Nutrients, in Nutrient Balances and the Need for Potassium, Proceedings of the 13th International Potash Institute Congress, August 1986, Reims, France (Basel, Switzerland: International Potash Institute, 1986); Table 3, op. cit. this note. African flows from Cooke, op. cit. note 27; Roy, op. cit. note 15.
Overapplication based on data in USDA, op. cit. note 23; Table 4 based on data in USDA, op. cit. note 23. Recycling rate of manure from Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) Integrated Animal Waste Management, Task Force Report No. 128 (Ames, IA, November 1996). Asia from Johnston, op. cit. note 7; United States from National Research Council, op. cit. note 7; Europe from Matthews, ed., op. cit. note 7, and Matthews, op. cit. note 7. Organic share is an average of member states reporting rates for the early 1990s, and is calculated from data in OECD, op. cit. note 4; including paper in the organic total boosts the organic share to nearly two thirds. Developing countries from Centre de Cooperation Suisse pour la Technologie et le Management (SKAT), Valorisation des dechets organiques dans les quartiers populaires des villes africaines (St. Gallen, Switzerland, 1996); 11 percent is an average of member states reporting rates for the early 1990s, and is based on data in OECD, op. cit. note 4.
Volatilization from Witter and Lopez-Real, op. cit. note 4; high-yielding varieties from Balu L. Bumb and Carlos A. Baanante, The Role of Fertilizer in Sustaining Food Security and Protecting the Environment to 2020, Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 17 (Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, September 1996).
Organic share is an average of member states reporting rates for the early 1990s, and is calculated from data in OECD, op. cit. note 4; including paper in the organic total boosts the organic share to nearly two thirds; developing countries from Valorisation, op. cit. note 32; 11 percent is an average of member states reporting rates for the early 1990s, and is based on data in OECD, op. cit. note 4; Table 5 calculated from data in OECD, op. cit. note 4. Paper data from OECD, op. cit. note 4. Brady and Weil, op. cit. note 14.

1997. Regional distinctions from World Resources Institute (WRI), World Resources 199697 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); 10 percent from Witter and Lopez-Real, op. cit. note 4; arid regions from Carl R. Bartone, International Perspective on Water Resources Management and Wastewater ReuseAppropriate Technologies, Water Science Technology, 23, 1991. Official encouragement from Peter Matthews, ed., op. cit. note 7; reuse rates: United States from National Research Council, op. cit. note 7; Europe from Matthews, ed., op. cit. note 7, and Matthews, op. cit. note 7; dumping sites from National Research Council, op. cit. note 7. Ocean dumping, once a common method of sewage disposal for some coastal cities, was outlawed in the United States in 1992, and will be illegal in Europe after 1998. See Cecil Lue-Hing, Peter Matthews, Juraj Namer, Nagaharu Okuno, and Ludovico Spinosa, Sludge Management in Highly Urbanized Areas, in Matthews, ed., op. cit. note 7. Assumes that 33 percent of sludge produced in OECD countries is already land applied. For calculation of share of nutrients in human waste, see note 4. For an explanation of the estimate of nutrient overapplication, see note 38; Table 7 is Worldwatch calculation based on data as follows: fertilizer use from FAO, op. cit. note 4; nutrient value of human waste from Witter and Lopez-Real, op. cit. note 4; population from USAID and U.S. Department of Commerce, op. cit. note 4.
Bartone, op. cit. note 48.
Israeli reuse from Sandra Postel, Dividing the Waters: Food Security, Ecosystem Health, and the New Politics of Scarcity, Worldwatch Paper 132 (Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute, September 1996); heavy metal levels from Yoram Avnimelech, Irrigation with Sewage Effluents: The Israeli Experience, Environmental Science and Technology, 27, no. 7, 1993.
Outbreaks from Hillel I. Shuval, Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries: Health Effects and Technical Solutions, Summary of World Bank Technical Paper Number 51 (Washington, DC: World Bank, 1990); Mexico from Duncan Mara and Sandy Cairncross, Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater and Excreta in Agriculture and Aquaculture (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1989). Substances from Laura Orlando, The Sewage Scam: Should Sludge Fertilize Your Vegetables? Dollars and Sense, May/June 1997; persistence of metals in soils from Land Application of Sewage Sludge, excerpt from Cornell Recommends, in press, August 1996. Standards from Orlando, op. cit. note 54; testing from Mark Lang, Carolyn E. Jenkins, and W. Dale Albert, USA: Northeastern States, in Peter Matthews, ed., op. cit. note 7.

Production, Economic Research Service (Washington, DC: USDA, September 1993). Corn from USDA, op. cit. note 23; Taiwan pollution from USDA, U.S. Grain Producers Have Big Steak in Taiwans Market, Grain: World Markets and Trade, June 1997.
Glover, op. cit. note 6. Table 8 based on Glover, op. cit. note 6.
Missouri farm from Mark Schultz, Land Stewardship Project, Minneapolis, MN, discussion with author, March, 1997; pollution from Glover, op. cit. note 6.
Brady and Weil, op. cit. note 14. SKAT, op. cit. note 32. Selvam, op. cit. note 39.
E.I. Stentiford, J.T. Pereira Neto, and D.D. Mara, Low cost composting, Research Monograph No. 4 (Leeds, U.K.: Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds, 1996). Inge Lardinois and Arnold van de Klundert, Recycling Urban Organics in Asia and Africa, Biocycle, June 1994.
Steuteville, op. cit. note 18; Guild, op. cit. note 18.
Cut in flows from Paul Vossen and Ellen Rilla, Trained Home Composters Reduce Solid Waste by 18%, California Agriculture, September-October 1996; costs from Ellen Rilla, CE Offices Facilitate Community Composting Efforts, California Agriculture, September-October 1996. Funding limitations and composting toilets from Peter H. Gleick, ed., Water in Crisis: A Guide to the Worlds Fresh Water Resources (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). Note that a much higher cost
differential28 timesis given in Briscoe and Garn, op. cit. note 14; Sweden from Goodland and Rockefeller, op. cit. note 5. Bob Scrowcroft, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA, conversation with author, 25 June 1997. Emily Green and Jim Kleinschmidt, Nutrient Management Yardsticks information sheet (Minneapolis, MN: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 1996). Cooperative Extension Service, Maryland Nutrient Management Program Annual Report, 1996 (College Park, MD: Maryland Department of Agriculture, 1996). Chapter 3. The Sewage Scam Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Common Courage Press, 1996. Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, #, Peter Montague, editor. Chapter 7. Improving Water Supply and Sanitation with Microcredit This paper builds upon an idea presented in a report called "Financial Services and Environmental Health: Household Credit for Water and Sanitation," by Robert C.G. Varley, formerly of USAID's Environmental Health Project (EHP). FINCA International Home Page. http://www.villagebanking.org (5 Mar. 1997) World Resources Institute. World Resources 1996-97: A Guide to the Global Environment. The Urban Environment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. p. 155. Serageldin. Financing Infrastructure Upgrading Programs. "The Impact of Investments in Urban Infrastructure on Municipal Revenues