karen rollins - backcountry black water management options analysis
TRANSCRIPT
Backcountry Black Water Management Options Analysis
Research byStantec Consulting Ltd. and SD Consulting Group
Presented byKaren Rollins, BEES
• To evaluate black water management options at remote alpine and subalpine huts in Canada’s mountain regions– life cycle costs– environmental impacts
Project Goal
Black Water Management Options
1. Pit toilet2. Barrel fly-out3. Incinerating toilet4. Carry-out5. Heated chamber
composting toilet– alpine– subalpine
Alpine Composting
- urine separation- urine evaporation- solids composted- 80% reduced
Subalpine Composting
- urine separation- urine treated on site- solids composted- 90% reduced
Costs– Construction– Operation and
maintenance– Total life cycle
Analysis
Environmental Impacts 0 to 5 rating
1. User health (potential for personal contact)
2. Water quality (ground and surface water)
3. Non-renewable energy use (diesel, propane, fuel)
4. Aesthetics (odours, visual impacts)
Location 1: Alpine, low useLocation 2: Alpine, high useLocation 3: Subalpine, moderate use
Locations
Location 1: Great Cairn Ben Ferris Hut
Selkirk Range
Mt. Sir Sandford
Alpine (6200 ft)
Low use (100 overnights/year)
Location 2: Bow HutWapta Icefields
Alpine (7710 ft)
High use (3000 overnights/yr)
Location 3: Elizabeth Parker HutLake O’Hara
Subalpine (6700 ft)
Moderate use (800 overnights per yr)
05000
1000015000200002500030000350004000045000
$
Barrel FlyOut
Incinerating Carry-out Composting
Construction Operation Life Cycle
Cost Comparison: Alpine 100 overnights
020000400006000080000
100000120000140000
$
Barrel FlyOut
Incinerating Carry-out Composting
Construction Operation Life Cycle
Cost Comparison: Alpine 3000 overnights
010000200003000040000500006000070000
$
Pit Toilet Barrel FlyOut
Incinerating Carry-out Composting
Construction Operation Life Cycle
Cost Comparison: Subalpine 800 overnights
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pit Toilet Incinerating CompostingAlpine
User Health Water Quality Non-renewable Energy Aesthetics
Environmental Impacts Comparison
Conclusions
• Barrel fly out and incinerating are generally more costly than other options
• Carry out works best in locations that receive low use, but becomes increasingly expensive in locations that receive high use
• Composting toilets cost less and have fewer environmental impacts than barrel fly out or incineration and are viable options in most locations
• There is not one perfect black water management solution for every location
BEES is facilitating additional research into: – Composting process– Urine separation and treatment– Dehydration / incineration combination systems
Project Outcome
Composting Research‘Life is like a sewer’Precautionary approach on what comes outRequires measuring & analysis standardizationControlling Variable (ongoing)
% Moisture, Temp, AerationPathogen Reduction (lab)
Fecal coliform bact. (<1000col. count)End Product = Compost?
Stability (Carbon degredation)CO2 Evolution / Oxygen UptakeMaturity (Nitrification NH3-NO2-NO3)NH3 concentrationUser friendly version: Solvita - $10/testC/N not a reliable indicator of completeness
Urine Separation
Urine Facts:1. Urine is sterile
2. There is less odour when urine and solids are separated
3. 90% of sewage is urine (literature)
4. Little field research to validate
1. Bugaboos Mass Balance
1. Barrel fly out (regular) = 0.63kg/use
2. Urine Diversion (urinal & seat) = 0.03kg/use
Dehydration and IncineratingNeed scalable & transferable indexEvaluate performance, cost, impacts (LCA & Mass Balance)
Mass Balance (urine d, exhaust, dehydrate, incin)How effective truly?Door counters & weigh scales
LCAWhat value / objectiveEnvironmental (CO2 equiv emmissions)Human (DALY)Capital / Operating
Eg: Barrel fly out – Golden, BC = 70-100 CO2 vs Incinerate onsite – Bugaboos, BC = 40-50 CO2
www.beeshive.org