This document analyzes black water (sewage) management options for remote alpine and subalpine huts in Canada's mountains. It evaluates five options - pit toilet, barrel fly-out, incinerating toilet, carry-out, and composting toilet - on their life cycle costs, environmental impacts, and applicability to different locations that vary in elevation and visitor numbers. Composting toilets are found to generally have lower costs and impacts than other options. Additional research is recommended into improving and standardizing the composting process, separating and treating urine, and combining dehydration and incineration systems.

1. Backcountry Black Water
Management Options Analysis
Research by
Stantec Consulting Ltd. and SD Consulting Group
Presented by
Karen Rollins, BEES

2. • To evaluate black water management options
at remote alpine and subalpine huts in
Canada’s mountain regions
– life cycle costs
– environmental impacts
Project Goal

3. Black Water Management Options
1. Pit toilet
2. Barrel fly-out
3. Incinerating toilet
4. Carry-out
5. 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

4. 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)

5. Location 1: Alpine, low use
Location 2: Alpine, high use
Location 3: Subalpine, moderate use
Locations

6. Location 1:
Great Cairn
Ben Ferris Hut
Selkirk Range
Mt. Sir Sandford
Alpine (6200 ft)
Low use
(100 overnights/year)

10. Location 2: Bow Hut
Wapta Icefields
Alpine (7710 ft)
High use (3000
overnights/yr)

14. Location 3: Elizabeth Parker Hut
Lake O’Hara
Subalpine
(6700 ft)
Moderate use
(800 overnights
per yr)

18. 0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
$
Barrel Fly
Out
Incinerating Carry-out Composting
Construction Operation Life Cycle
Cost Comparison: Alpine 100 overnights

19. 0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
$
Barrel Fly
Out
Incinerating Carry-out Composting
Construction Operation Life Cycle
Cost Comparison: Alpine 3000 overnights

20. 0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
$
Pit Toilet Barrel Fly
Out
Incinerating Carry-out Composting
Construction Operation Life Cycle
Cost Comparison: Subalpine 800 overnights

21. 0
1
2
3
4
5
Pit Toilet Incinerating Composting
Alpine
User Health Water Quality Non-renewable Energy Aesthetics
Environmental Impacts Comparison

22. 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

23. BEES is facilitating additional research into:
– Composting process
– Urine separation and treatment
– Dehydration / incineration combination systems
Project Outcome

24. Composting Research
‘Life is like a sewer’
Precautionary approach on what comes out
Requires measuring & analysis
standardization
Controlling Variable (ongoing)
% Moisture, Temp, Aeration
Pathogen Reduction (lab)
Fecal coliform bact. (<1000col. count)
End Product = Compost?
Stability (Carbon degredation)
CO2 Evolution / Oxygen Uptake
Maturity (Nitrification NH3-NO2-NO3)
NH3 concentration
User friendly version: Solvita - $10/test
C/N not a reliable indicator of completeness

25. 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

26. Dehydration and Incinerating
Need scalable & transferable index
Evaluate performance, cost, impacts
(LCA & Mass Balance)
Mass Balance (urine d, exhaust, dehydrate, incin)
How effective truly?
Door counters & weigh scales
LCA
What value / objective
Environmental (CO2 equiv emmissions)
Human (DALY)
Capital / Operating
Eg: Barrel fly out – Golden, BC = 70-100 CO2
vs Incinerate onsite – Bugaboos, BC = 40-50 CO2

27. www.beeshive.org