A handful of current events have put waterless urinals back in the limelight once again. The most recent (or at least the most high-profile) were the debacles in both Chicago’s city hall and California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters. Both buildings experimented with waterless urinals, and as of this past February, both buildings terminated their respective experiments.

At first this appeared to be little more than a fluke, but closer research revealed a dozen similar news stories, most of which bore titles that included the word “stinky.” Anyone interested in waterless urinals is confronted with two sets of data: date from the manufacturers, who obviously support and advocate their product to the fullest, and data from those who’ve actually tried the units in their buildings.

For manufacturers, the pitch is simple enough: rising demands on clean water combined with concern for waste management call for more efficient urinals. We need to use less water, and put less waste into the environment. Instead of water these urinals use a chemical cartridge that creates a “liquid seal.” The lighter specific gravity of the chemical allows it to float to the top and trap sewer smells in – or at least that’s the plan.

One story, from the University of South Maine, called “Making Waterless Work”, seems to land in favor of waterless. The article concludes that results and responses to waterless were mixed: faculty and students generally accepted and appreciated the new units, while housekeeping was generally unreceptive. Apparently, changing the cartridges on these new units is not a pleasant experience. But even this can be avoided to some extent, say waterless proponents. There are many waterless units that use solution instead of cartridges. And as for the major concern, the smell, the article concludes that stink is largely the result of urine on floors and in the general vicinity – the fault of maintenance, not manufacturing.

The opposition is based largely on popular rejection and on infrastructure concerns. The failure of waterless urinals at Chicago city hall was mostly the result of code conflicts between the city of Chicago, which requires copper pipes in indoor plumbing, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, which specifically states that drainpipes for waterless urinals "cannot be made of copper pipe, which corrodes." But the article reporting that California’s EPA headquarters had removed all 56 of their waterless units gave no such copper explanation. During the six years of experimentation, employees lodged hundreds of complaints – bad smells, urine splashed on the floor.

So if anything is clear, it’s that waterless should be implemented in small stages, as large-scale projects tend to reduce the issue to savings and bottom-lines. (By the way, California’s EPA HQ was saving 1-million gallons of water every year!) And not all waterless urinals are created equal – do your research before you buy in.

Facts & Fictions of Waterless Urinals: 

http://www.terrylove.com/waterless_urinals_fact_fiction.htm