Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Karen Rollins - Backcountry Black Water Management Options Analysis

88 views

Published on

Karen Rollins - Backcountry Black Water Management Options Analysis

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Karen Rollins - Backcountry Black Water Management Options Analysis

  1. 1. Backcountry Black Water Management Options Analysis Research by Stantec Consulting Ltd. and SD Consulting Group Presented by Karen Rollins, BEES
  2. 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. 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. 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. 5. Location 1: Alpine, low use Location 2: Alpine, high use Location 3: Subalpine, moderate use Locations
  6. 6. Location 1: Great Cairn Ben Ferris Hut Selkirk Range Mt. Sir Sandford Alpine (6200 ft) Low use (100 overnights/year)
  7. 7. Location 2: Bow Hut Wapta Icefields Alpine (7710 ft) High use (3000 overnights/yr)
  8. 8. Location 3: Elizabeth Parker Hut Lake O’Hara Subalpine (6700 ft) Moderate use (800 overnights per yr)
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 $ Barrel Fly Out Incinerating Carry-out Composting Construction Operation Life Cycle Cost Comparison: Alpine 3000 overnights
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Pit Toilet Incinerating Composting Alpine User Health Water Quality Non-renewable Energy Aesthetics Environmental Impacts Comparison
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. BEES is facilitating additional research into: – Composting process – Urine separation and treatment – Dehydration / incineration combination systems Project Outcome
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. www.beeshive.org

×