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