bees ww analysis_final

8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final

1/60

BackcountryBlackwa

ManagementOptions

Anal

BackcountryEnergyEnvironmentalSolu

January


2/60


3/60

PROJECTNO.

191810077

REPORTTO BackcountryEnergyEnvironmentalSolutions(BEES)

FOR BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis

PRINCIPALCONTACT KarenRollins

BEES

January2010

StantecConsultingLtd.

Edmonton,AB

780969226

[email protected]

SDConsultingGroupCanada,Inc

Calgary,AB

SaintPaul,MN

6122097366

[email protected]


4/60


5/60

BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis

i

TableofContents

1.0 EXECUTIVESUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 BLACKWATERDISCUSSION......................................................................................................................................................4

2.2 STANDARDSEPTICTANKDRAINFIELDAPPLICATIONS.............................................................................................................5

2.3 URINENEUTRALIZATION .........................................................................................................................................................5

3.0 BLACKWATERMANAGEMENTOPTIONSEVALUATIONPROCESS.................................................. 6

3.1 EVALUATIONCRITERIA............................................................................................................................................................6

3.1.1 Costs....................................................................................................................... 63.1.2 Environmental Impacts........................................................................................... 6

4.0 EXISTINGSITECONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 8

4.1

LOCATIONS84.1.1 Alpine Conditions Great Cairn Hut....................................................................... 8

4.1.2 Alpine Conditions Bow Hut.................................................................................. 94.1.3 Subalpine Conditions Elizabeth Parker Hut....................................................... 10

5.0 BLACKWATERMANAGEMENTOPTIONS .................................................................................. 11

5.1 TECHNOLOGYOPTIONS.........................................................................................................................................................11

5.2 EVALUATIONPROCESS..........................................................................................................................................................11

5.3 PITTOILETS11

5.3.1 Technology Description........................................................................................ 115.3.2 Costs..................................................................................................................... 125.3.3 Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 13

5.4 BARRELFLYOUTS..................................................................................................................................................................13

5.4.1 Costs..................................................................................................................... 145.4.2 Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 14

5.5 INCINERATINGTOILETS.........................................................................................................................................................15

5.5.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Incinerating Toilets User Feedback............ 155.5.2 Costs..................................................................................................................... 165.5.3 Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 16

5.6 CARRYOUT17

5.6.1 Costs..................................................................................................................... 175.6.2 Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 18

5.7 COMPOSTINGTOILETS..........................................................................................................................................................18

5.7.1

Advantages and Disadvantages of Composting Toilets User Feedback........... 205.7.2 Alpine Option: Composting toilets + Liquid Evaporation + Barrel Fly-Out........... 21

5.7.2.1 Costs..................................................................................................................... 225.7.2.2 Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 235.7.3 Sub-Alpine Option: Composting Toilet + Liquid Infiltration + Barrel Fly-Out........ 235.7.3.1 Costs..................................................................................................................... 245.7.3.2 Environmental Impacts......................................................................................... 25

5.8 ENERGYSOURCESFORCOMPOSTINGTOILETS.....................................................................................................................25


6/60


ii

6.0 BLACKWATERMANAGEMENTOPTIONSANALYSISANDCOMPARISON ..................................... 26

6.1 COSTCOMPARISON...............................................................................................................................................................26

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSCOMPARISON...........................................................................................................................28

7.0 SUMMARYANDRECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................... 29

8.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDICIES

A: LOCATION1COSTTABLES

B: LOCATION2COSTTABLES

C: LOCATION3COSTTABLES


7/60


ExecutiveSummary

January2010

1

1.0 ExecutiveSummary

Analysis Overview

Thegoalofthisanalysisistoevaluateblackwatermanagementoptionsforremotealpineandsubalpine

huts and lodges in Canadas mountainous regions. Costs and environmental impacts have been

evaluatedforeachofthemanagementoptions. Duetodifferentsiteconditionsandusage,threehuts

operatedbytheAlpineClubofCanadahavebeenevaluated:

Location1: Alpine,100overnightsperyear

Location2: Alpine,3000overnightsperyear

Location3: Subalpine,800overnightsperyear

Foreachofthelocations,thefollowingblackwateroptionshavebeenevaluated:

Pittoilets

Barrelflyouts

Incineratingtoilets

Heatedchambercompostingtoilets(differentalpineandsubalpinesystems)

Carryout

Itis

important

to

consider

that

the

hut

and

lodge

users

and

operators

do

not

want

asystem

that

destroys the senseof solitude in these areas, represents an irrationaluseof resources,ordoesnot

protect the spread of harmful pathogens. As a result, the goal of the recommended blackwater

managementsolutions inthisreport istoprotectwaterquality,preventnaturalresourcedamage,and

protecttheaestheticqualityofthehutanditspristineenvironmentallocation.

Properplanningateachsite iscriticaltodeterminethesizeanduseofeachfacilitytopreventagainst

overloadingandsystemabuse.

Analysis Results: Costs

Construction, annualoperations andmaintenance and total life cycle costs have been evaluated for

eachofthehutlocationsandtheblackwateroptions. Thegeneralanalysisresultsarepresentedhere.


8/60


ExecutiveSummary

January2010

2

ForLocation1,the incineratingtoiletshave

the

highest

life

cycle

costs,

while

the

carry

outoptionhasthe lowest. Thecomposting

toilet system has the second lowest total

life cycle cost and does not require

significant operations and maintenance by

users. Estimated costs are shown in the

figuretotheright.

ForLocation2,thecarryoutoptionhasthe

highestlifecyclecostwhilethepittoilethas

the lowest. The composting toilet system

has the second lowest total life cycle cost

anddoesnot require significantoperations

andmaintenancebyusers. Estimatedcosts

areshowninthefiguretotheright.

For Location 3, the incinerating toilet has

the highest life cycle cost while the

composting toilet system has the lowest.

Estimated costsare shown in the figure to

theright.

$

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

$120,000.00

$140,000.00

ConstructionCost

AnnualO&M

TotalLifeCycleCost


9/60


ExecutiveSummary

January2010

3

Analysis Results: Environmental Impacts

Environmental impacts including aesthetics,

nonrenewable energy usage, water quality

impacts, anduserhealth impactshavebeen

compared among the blackwater

managementoptionsevaluatedinthisreport.

Each impact has been rated from 1 to 5 (1

low, 5 high impact). The potential impacts

associated with each management option

vary across the options. The figure to the

rightshowstheoptions,impactsandrating.


10/60


Introduction

January2010

4

2.0 Introduction

This analysis addresses alpine and subalpine wastewater treatment and disposal options. These

backcountry facilitiestypicallyaresmallbuildings(hutsand lodges)thatprovideshelterforhikersand

skiersalongwithcookingandbathroomfacilities. Theremote locationsandphysicalenvironmentsof

thesefacilitieslimittheavailablewastewatermanagementoptions. Ownersandoperatorsarerequired

to be creativewith theirwastewater treatmentoptions. Adequatewaste treatment is necessary in

ordertopreservethepristineandecologicallysensitivesiteswherethesehutsarelocated. Inaddition,

due to the remote nature of these sites, systems that are reliable and have a long lifespan are

advantageous.

Thepurposeofthisreport istoprovideadetailedevaluationofblackwatermanagementsolutionsfor

backcountry

huts

and

lodges

in

Canadas

mountainous

regions.

This

assessment

evaluates

construction,

operation, and lifecycle costs. In addition to the cost assessment, a review of the environmental

impactsofeachoptionandtheirapplicability inthesubalpineandalpineenvironmentwascompleted.

Thesystemsthatwereassessedinclude:

Pittoilets

Barrelflyouts

Incineratingtoilets

Heatedchambercompostingtoilets

Carryout

Theinformationcontainedinthisreportincludesrecommendationsofthemostappropriateblackwater

managementsystemsforanyhut/lodge. Thespecificsystemsrecommendedarebasedupongeologic

conditions,sitehydrology,soils,geographic location,elevation, frequencyofuse,andavailablepower

sources. In our opinion, the recommended options are cost effective and environmentally sound

solutionsformanagingblackwateratbackcountrysites.

2.1 BLACKWATERDISCUSSION

Blackwater,

otherwise

known

as

brown

water

or

sewage,

is

waste

from

toilets

and

urinals.

Contents

of

blackwatertypicallyincludefecalmatter,urine,toiletpaperandanytoiletflushwater. Waterlesstoilets

willgenerateblackwaterwithouttheflushingwatercomponent.

Propertreatmentandhandlingofblackwater iscriticalduetothepotentiallydangerouspathogens in

thewater. Propertreatmentisnecessarytoprotectbothpublichealthandtheenvironment,especially

inremoteandsensitiveecosystems.


11/60


Introduction

January2010

5

Blackwater isonetypeofwastewater,anothertype isgreywater. Greywater iswastewaterfromsinks

andshowersanddoesnotcontainthesamepathogenconcentrationasblackwater. Greywaterhandling

atthebackcountrysitesisalsonecessary,butisnotaddressedinthisreport.

2.2 STANDARDSEPTICTANKDRAINFIELDAPPLICATIONS

Formostonsiteapplications,blackwateristypicallyhandledwithaseptictankanddrainfieldsometimes

calledasoiltreatmentunit. Insomecases,secondarytreatmentisrequiredforadditionaltreatmentof

thewastewaterbetweentheseptictankanddrainfield. Theseptictankseparatesthe liquid fromthe

solidportionofthewastewhileadrainfieldprovidesadischarge location forthe liquidportionofthe

waste,commonly referred toasgreywater. Sufficientsoil treatment in thedrainfieldsystem renders

thewatercleanenoughtobereleasedtotheenvironment. Solidsbuildup intheseptictankandare

removed every few years (the actual pumping frequency depends on the sizing and usage of the

system).AccordingtotheEnergy,Water,andWasteManagementPilotStudy,mostlodgeownerswith

septic

systems

are

satisfied

with

the

low

cost

of

installation

and

ease

of

operations

and

maintenance.

Aseptictankanddrainfieldarenotfeasibleformostbackcountryhutsandlodgesduetothesizeofthe

requiredtanks,equipmentnecessaryforinstallation,electricalrequirementsandthinsoils. Thisreport

willnotreviewthisoptionasitisnotapplicabletoenvironmentalconditionsdescribedinthisreport. A

site evaluation detailing soil conditions, proximity to wetlands/streams, and wastewater flows is

necessarytodeterminethefeasibilityofstandardsepticsystems.

2.3 URINENEUTRALIZATION

According toMetcalfandEddy,80%of thenitrogenand45%of thephosphates inblackwatercomes

fromurine. Consideringthesehighpercentagesofpotentiallytoxicnutrients,adequateurinetreatment

isnecessarybefore itcanbe released into theenvironment. Insituationswith suitablesoil forasoilbased urine disposal system, these nutrients are neutralized in the soil through chemical/biological

processes and groundwater dilution. In alpine situations, urine collection can cause serious

contamination and aesthetic concerns as there is inadequate soil cover toprovide treatmentbefore

urinecomesincontactwiththerocksurfaceandsurfacewatersources.

Urineneutralization technologiesare currentlyavailable,but relyonmulti stageaerationandanoxic

processes that may be difficult to reproduce in remote conditions. The blackwater management

processes recommended in this report provide for urine treatment through soil disposal and

evaporationarelikelythelowestcostandleastcomplexofavailabletechnologies.


12/60


BlackwaterManagementOptionsEvaluationProcess

January2010

6

3.0 BlackwaterManagementOptionsEvaluationProcess

3.1 EVALUATIONCRITERIA

Severalblackwatermanagementoptionshavebeenevaluatedinthisreport. Theseoptionshavebeen

evaluatedbasedontwobroadfactors:

1. CostConstruction,annualoperationsandmaintenanceandtotallifecycle

2. EnvironmentalImpactsuserhealthimpacts,waterqualityimpacts,nonrenewableenergyuse,

andaesthetics.

3.1.1 Costs

The construction, annual operations andmaintenance, aswell as life cycles costs for each

optiondiscussed in Section5of this reporthavebeenevaluated. Costsarebasedon2009

constructioncostsandpreviousexperiencewithsimilarprojects. Inspecificcases,costsmay

havebeenacquiredfromvariousvendorsandsuppliersworkedwithonpastprojects.

Thefollowingdescriptionsdefineeachofthesecosts.

Construction Cost The anticipated cost to build (construct) the identified blackwater

management facilities. Sinceconstructioncostsare incurredatthebeginningoftheproject,

constructioncostsareacapitalcost.

OperationandMaintenance(O&M)CostsTheannual (costperyear)total for itemssuchas

labor,andpowersource.

PresentWorthofAnnualO&MTheamountofmoneythatwouldhavetobedepositedinthe

banktodaytopayforalloftheannualO&Moverthenext30years.

LifeCycleCostThe totalcapitalcostadded to thepresentworthof theannualO&M. Life

cycle costsareused to identify themost costeffectivealternativesover theprojectperiod.

The life cycle cost approach allows low construction/high O&M cost alternatives to be

comparedonanapplestoapplesbasiswithhighconstruction/lowO&Mcostalternatives.

3.1.2 Environmental Impacts

Theenvironmentalimpactsofeachoptionhavebeenevaluatedbasedonaratingscalefrom0

to5 (0 limited impactand5 highpotential impact). The followingenvironmental impacts

havebeencomparedamongtheblackwatermanagementoptions:


13/60


BlackwaterManagementOptionsEvaluationProcess

January2010

7

User Health Impacts This includes the potential for human contact with waste and the

associatedhealthimplications.

Water

Quality

Impacts

The

potential

for

blackwater

to

negatively

impact

both

surface

and

groundwaterresources.

NonRenewableEnergyUsageTheamountofnonrenewableenergyrequiredforthesystem

tooperate.

Aesthetics This includesaesthetic attributesof the system such asodors, convenience and

visualimpacts.


14/60


ExistingSiteConditions

January2010

8

4.0 ExistingSiteConditions

4.1 LOCATIONSBesides a review of applicable blackwater treatment technologies, this report also evaluates three

specificlocationsandprovidesrecommendationsonthemostappropriatetechnologies. Asidentifiedin

theJanuary21,2009RequestforProposal(RFP),theseoptionsinclude:

Location1: Alpine,100overnightsperyear(representativeoflowusealpineshelter)

Location2: Alpine,3000overnightsperyear(representativeofhighusealpinehut)

Location 3: Subalpine, 800 overnights per year (representative of moderate use

subalpinehut

or

lodge)

InJuly2009,StantecaccompaniedBEESpersonneltotwobackcountrysitesthatprovideexamplesof

alpineandsubalpineconditions: 1)theBowHutand2)theElizabethParkerHut. Furtherinformation

oneachofthesehutsisprovidedinthefollowingsections.

4.1.1 Alpine Conditions Great Cairn Hut

Alpineconditionsarelocatedatelevationsabovethetreeline,whichvariesdependingonthe

climaticandgeologicconditionsofeachsite. Subjecttoamuchharsherclimate(strongwinds

and colder temperatures), alpine areas are dominated by glacialmoraine terrains (minimal

soils,coarse

gravels,

bedrock

exposures)

with

minimal

vegetative

cover.

The

Great

Cairn

Hut,

showninFigure4.1,islocatedinthealpineregion.

FIGURE4.1 GREATCAIRNHUT


15/60



January2010

9

The Great Cairn Hut sleeps up to 6 users per night and currently uses barrel flyouts for

blackwaterdisposal. Theouthousesarelocatedapproximately50metersfromthehut.Dueto

thedifficultoverlandroutesanditslocationwithintheNorthernSelkirkMountains(elevation

1,830

meters),

the

hut

only

averages

approximately

100

overnights

per

year.

Water

supply

is

providedbyasmallcreekfromtheHaworthGlacierandwastewatermaintenancecostsforthe

facilityaverageapproximately$2,000peryear.

4.1.2 Alpine Conditions Bow Hut

TheBowHut,showninFigure4.2,isalsolocatedwithinthisalpineregion.

FIGURE4.2 BOWHUT

TheBowHutsleepsupto30userspernightandcurrentlysupportsuserswithtwobarrelflyout

toilets.Located

at

an

elevation

of

2,350

meters,

the

hut

is

often

used

for

ice

climbing

and

mountaineeringtraining. Anaverageof3,180visitorsperyearhaveusedtheBowHutoverthe

last three years. The averagemaintenance cost forwastewatermanagement was $5,000.

WatersupplyisprovidedbysnowmeltandglacialstreamsfromtheWaptaIcefields.


16/60



January2010

10

4.1.3 Subalpine Conditions Elizabeth Parker Hut

Subalpinehutfacilitiesarelocatedbelowthetreelineindiversehabitatsrangingfrommeadow

to

forested

communities.

Soil

profiles

are

generally

more

developed

in

these

areas,

but

groundwater is typically close to the surface, flowingon thebedrock shelves. The Elizabeth

ParkerHut(showninFigure4.3)islocatedwithinthesubalpineareassurroundingLakeOHara.

The environmental conditions at Elizabeth Parker Hut are similar to other lodges located in

Canadasmountainousregions.

FIGURE4.3 ELIZABETHPARKERHUT

TheElizabethParkerHut(EP)sleepsupto24peoplepernightandhasaveraged4,342usersper

yearsince

2006.

Washroom

facilities

are

provided

through

an

outbuilding

and

barrel

fly

outs

while potable water is supplied through the nearby stream or snowmelt in the winter.

Wastewatermaintenancecostsforthefacilityaverageapproximately$6,300peryear.


17/60


BlackwaterManagementOptions

January2010

11

5.0 BlackwaterManagementOptions

5.1 TECHNOLOGYOPTIONS

A number of blackwatermanagement options have been evaluated in this analysis. Four of these

optionsareapplicabletoboththealpineandsubalpinesitesandinclude:

Pittoilets

BarrelFlyOuts

IncineratingToilets

Carryout

Inaddition to these fouroptions,a composting toiletoptionhasbeenevaluated foreachof the site

types. Becauseofdifferingsiteconditionsatthealpineandsubalpinecabins,asitespecificcomposting

systemhasbeenevaluatedforeach. Thecomponentsforeachsysteminclude:

Alpinesystem: compostingtoilet,evaporationtank(forliquids)andbarrelflyouts

Subalpinesystem: compostingtoilet,onsiteliquidinfiltrationfield,andbarrelflyouts

5.2 EVALUATIONPROCESS

Afterareviewof theavailable technologies,constructionand total lifecyclecostswereevaluated for

the3hutlocationtypesidentifiedintheRFP. Detailedcosttablesforeachoftheoptionsevaluated(all

three hut/lodge locations) are provided in Appendices A, B, and C. The details of these costs are

discussedinSections3and4ofthisreport.

Following the cost analysis, each of the blackwater management options were rated for potential

environmentalandaesthetic impacts. These impactsarealsodiscussed further inSections3and4of

thisreport.

5.3 PITTOILETS

5.3.1 Technology Description

Apit toiletorpit latrine isa simple formofwastehandling in remote locations. Typically,a

smallstructureisbuiltoverawastecollectionpit. Pittoiletodorsandvectorattractioncanbe

minimizedthroughtheinclusionofventilation,althoughadraftneedstobecreatedtoproperly

ventilatethestructure. Pitsaremovedandbackfilledwhenthewastereacheswithinonefoot

of the original grade. Microorganisms in the soil eventually break down thewaste. In the


18/60



January2010

12

alpine,theshallowbedrocklayersmakethediggingofpitsdifficult,ifnotimpossible. Pittoilets

maybeaviablesolutioninsubalpineareaswherethereissufficientsoildepth

To

provide

adequate

treatment

of

liquid

waste,

pit

toilets

need

to

have

developed

soils

with

good infiltrativequalities. Successofpits canbe limitedbypoorlydrained soils,highwater

table,steepslopes,shallowbedrockandcoldtemperatures. AccordingtotheAppalachianTrail

Conferences Backcountry Sanitation Manual, pit toilets can contaminate a radius of 15

meters fromthepit location. However, inthealpine,pittoiletsareasignificantgroundwater

contaminationriskfromgroundwaterinfiltratingthroughfracturesinthebedrockandsurfacing

downslope,potentiallycontaminatingamuchlargerarea(BackcountrySanitationManual).

TheGreenMountainClub,associatedwiththeAppalachianTrail,hasdevelopedanalternative

tothepittoilet,calledamolderingprivy. Thedifferencebetweenthetwoisthatthemoldering

privyencouragesslow,coolcompostingofthewaste. Structuresareconstructedonventilated

cribs

where

the

solids

collect

and

the

liquids

infiltrate

into

the

ground.

Organic

material,

such

as

leavesandduffismixedinwiththesolidsasacarbonadditionforcomposting.

Anumberofcribsaretypicallyconstructedandwhenonecellisfull,thestructurecanbemoved

toasecondcell,whilethefirstcellgoesthroughthecompostingprocess. Thisisstillarelatively

new process and is likely not applicable to alpine conditions, butmay be applicable to the

subalpine. Theaestheticconcernsandenvironmentalimpactwillbesimilartothepittoilet,but

the required footprint for new systems will be restricted to the composting cribs that are

constructedandreusedascompostisremoved.

5.3.2 Costs

Theconstruction

and

total

life

cycle

costs

of

apit

toilet

have

been

evaluated

for

each

of

the

three locations discussed in Section 2 of this report. Table 5.1 summarizes the results and

Section6ofthisreportcomparesthecostsamongoptionsandlocations.

TABLE5.1 PITTOILETCOSTS

LocationEstimated

ConstructionCost

EstimatedYearly

O&M

EstimatedLifeCycle

Cost

1: Alpine,100overnights $4000 $400 $14,516

2: Alpine,3000overnights $4,000 $2,400 $47,093

3: Subalpine,800overnights $4,000 $1,200 $27,547


19/60



January2010

13


TheenvironmentalimpactsdiscussedinSection2ofthisreporthavebeenevaluatedforthepit

toilet. Table 5.2 summarizes the impacts, rating for the pit toilet (0=low impact, 5=high

potentialimpact)andnotesregardingthepotentialimpactsofthesystem.

TABLE5.2 PITTOILETENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS

Impact Rating Notes

UserHealthImpacts 2 Potentialforwastecontactiftoiletisnotmaintained/cleaned

WaterQualityImpacts 4

Potentialforleakageofwasteintogroundandparticularly

surfacewater. Potentialforimpactstowaterqualityarehighat

alpinesitesbecauseofthelackofsoil

NonRenewableEnergy

Usage0 Nononrenewableenergyrequirements

Aesthetics 4Toiletsystemcanbeodorousandmustbemovedeveryfew

years. Willbelocatedoutdoorsandcoldinwinter.

5.4 BARRELFLYOUTS

Flyoutofwasteisanoptioncurrentlyutilizedatanumberofthebackcountrysites. Thebarrelflyout

option limits onsite environmental degradation, but is both costly and potentially dangerous. This

optionhasbeencomparedtotheotheravailableoptions inthisanalysis.Examplehutflyout facilities

areshowninFigure5.1.

Figure5.1: BarrelFlyOutFacilities


20/60



January2010

14

Duringhutmaintenance,150literbarrelsofblackwaterareflownout(threeperflight)toabasestation

located

near

the

closet

highway.

A

pumper

truck

evacuates

the

barrels

and

takes

the

waste

to

a

certifiedwastewater treatment site. Barrels are then returned for reuse in the hut. Hut users are

responsibleforremovingandsealingthebarrelswhentheyreachcapacity.

5.4.1 Costs

Theconstructionandtotal lifecyclecostsofthebarrelflyoutblackwatermanagementsystem

havebeenevaluatedforeachofthethreelocationsdiscussedinSection2ofthisreport. Table

5.3summarizestheresultsandSection6ofthisreportcomparesthecostsamongoptionsand

locations. FlyoutcostsarebasedonexistingdataprovidedbyBEESonaperuserbasis.

TABLE5.3 BARRELFLYOUTCOSTS

LocationEstimated

ConstructionCost

EstimatedYearly

O&M

EstimatedLifeCycle

Cost





Theenvironmental impactsdiscussed in Section2of this reporthavebeenevaluated for the

barrel flyoutoption. Table5.4 summarizes the impacts, rating for thebarrel flyout (0=low

impact,5=highpotentialimpact)andnotesregardingthepotentialimpactsofthesystem.

TABLE5.4 BARRELFLYOUTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS

Impact Rating Notes

UserHealthImpacts 4

Highpotentialforcontactwithwastewhenbarrelsmustbe

exchanged. Helicopterflyoutscanbedangerousinwindy

conditions.

WaterQualityImpacts 0 Wasteisseparatefromtheenvironment.

NonRenewableEnergy

Usage4 Helicopterflyoutsrequirenonrenewableenergy

Aesthetics 3Visitormanagementofthewastebarrelsisnotdesirable.

Existingfacilitiesarecleanwithminimalodours.


21/60



January2010

15

5.5 INCINERATINGTOILETS

Incineratingtoiletsareawaterlesstoiletoptionforwastemanagementinremotelocations. Figure5.1

showsatypical

incinerating

toilet

system.

The

waste

is

incinerated

in

achamber

separate

from

the

toiletandcreatesasterileashbyproductthatneedstoberemovedandproperlydisposed. Typically,

ash isflownoutofthesite inbarrelsorcarriedout insmaller loadsthroughouttheseason. Thetoilet

requiresmoreenergy than theothermanagementoptions. As shown in Figure5.2 it requiresboth

electricityandfuel. Bothpropaneandelectricincinerationunitsareavailable. However,accordingto

Storburn International, a leading supplier of incineration toilets, gas powered units are twice as

expensiveastheelectricvariety.

FIGURE5.2 INCINERATINGTOILETSYSTEM(SOURCE: ECOJOHN)

Incineratingtoiletsaretypicallyusedinsituationsofzerodischargeandasingleuserfacility. Alpinehut

locationstypicallycannotmeettherigorouspowerdemandsofmultipleincinerationeventsandamount

of use would likely overwhelm the facility. However, propane powered toilets are used in alpine

situationsandcansupportahighercapacity ifsolidsand liquidsareseparated. Inallcases,afulltime

custodian isnecessaryat incineratingtoilet installationstomanage incinerationeventsandthepower

supply.

5.5.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Incinerating Toilets User Feedback

InBritishColumbiaandAlberta, incinerating toiletsare currentlyused inboth thealpineand

subalpine.Both

the

Powder

Creek

Lodge

(Purcell

Mountains)

and

Selkirk

Lodge

(East

of

RevelstokeintheAlbertIcefields)havebeenusing incineratingtoiletsforat least20yearsand

aresatisfiedwiththetechnology. Atboth lodges,a fulltimeoperator isavailabletomaintain

theincineratingunitsandaseparatetoiletfacilityisprovidedforliquids. Sinceelectricalpower

is not available, both lodges use gas powered units. At the Selkirk Lodge, two 500 gallon

propanetanksthatare6065%fullareflowninbyhelicoptereachyear.


22/60



January2010

16

Based on user feedback and other available resources, advantages and disadvantages to

incineratingtoiletsaresummarizedbelow:

Advantages

Disadvantages

Waterlessflushwaterisnotrequired

Harmful nutrients and pathogens are

destroyedduringincineration

Wastevolumeisreducedby95%

Endproductsaresterileandcanbe flown

out

Odourless,ifnotoverloaded

Requiresenergysourcegasorelectric

Propane tanksneed tobe flown inyearly

andcanbedangerous

In high capacity situations, liquids and

toiletpapermustbeseparatedout

Overloadedtoiletscanbeveryunpleasant

Potentiallyvaluablenutrients inwasteare

destroyed

Fulltimeoperatorrequired

5.5.2 Costs

Theconstructionandtotal lifecyclecostsofan incineratingtoiletsystemhavebeenevaluated

foreachofthethree locationsdiscussed inSection2ofthisreport. Table5.5summarizesthe

resultsandSection6ofthisreportcomparesthecostsamongoptionsandlocations.

TABLE5.5 INCINERATINGTOILETCOSTS

LocationEstimated

ConstructionCost

EstimatedYearly

O&MEstimatedLifeCycleCost

1:Alpine,

100

overnights

$9,000

$1,885

$41,505





incineratingtoiletoption. Table5.6summarizes the impacts,rating for the incineratingtoilet

(0=low impact, 5=high potential impact) and notes regarding the potential impacts of the

system.


23/60



January2010

17

TABLE5.6 INCINERATINGTOILETENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS

Impact Rating Notes

UserHealthImpacts 1Contactwithwasteisverylow. Ashfromwasteissafeto

removeandcanbewalkedorflownoutofthesite.

WaterQualityImpacts 0 Wasteisseparatefromtheenvironment

NonRenewableEnergy

Usage5

Wasteincinerationrequireslargeamountofenergywhen

comparedtootheroptions

Aesthetics 1Toiletissimilartoaflushtoiletinfunction. Highusagemay

causeoverloadingoftoilet.

5.6 CARRYOUT

Waste carryout is a blackwater management option that significantly reduces the requirement to

constructandmaintainonsite toilet facilities. TheWagBag, shown inFigure5.3, isanexampleofa

commercially available carryout bag. Other available options include the Travel John Kit and the

PoopTube,bothcommonlyavailablethroughmanufacturerwebsites. OurunderstandingisthatWag

BagsarecurrentlybeingpilotedattheGreatCairnHut.

Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,itisassumedthatfacilityoperatorswillprovidethesebagstovisitors.

FIGURE5.3 WAGBAGCARRYOUTCONTAINER

5.6.1 Costs

Theconstructionand total lifecyclecostsofwastecarryouthavebeenevaluated foreachof

thethreelocationsdiscussed inSection2ofthisreport. Table5.7summarizestheresultsand

Section6ofthisreportcomparesthecostsamongoptionsandlocations.


24/60



January2010

18

TABLE5.7 CARRYOUTCOSTS

LocationEstimated

ConstructionCost

EstimatedYearlyO&MEstimatedLife

CycleCost

1: Alpine,100overnights $500 $8,144

2: Alpine,3000overnights $8,000 $130,311

3: Subalpine,800overnights $2,500 $40,722



waste carryout option. Table 5.8 summarizes the impacts, rating for the waste carryout

(0=lowimpact,

5=high

potential

impact)

and

notes

regarding

the

potential

impacts

of

the

system.

TABLE5.8 CARRYOUTENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS

Impact Rating Notes

UserHealthImpacts 3Wastemustbehandledbyeachvisitorincreasingthepotential

forwastecontact.

WaterQualityImpacts 0 Wasteisseparatefromtheenvironment.

NonRenewableEnergy

Usage 0 Carryoutdoesnotrequireanyenergyinputs.

Aesthetics 3

Carryoutislessaestheticallypleasingfortheuser,butcan

increasetheaestheticsofthehutsitesbyeliminatingonsite

wastemanagement.

5.7 COMPOSTINGTOILETS

Composting toiletsprovideboth liquidsolidseparationandwastedecomposition. Composting toilets

areevaluatedforuseatthebackcountrysitesaspartofalargersystem. Asystemhasbeendeveloped

foreach

of

the

site

types:

alpine

and

subalpine.

Figure

5.4

shows

atypical

installation

of

awaterless

compostingtoiletsystem.


25/60



January2010

19

FIGURE5.4

COMPOSTING

TOILET

SYSTEM

(SOURCE:

CLIVUS

MULTRUM)

A composting toiletworksby capturing thenutrients inwasteandbreaking themdown into simple,

stable compounds that have high value as plant nutrients. Waste is broken down by mesophilic

organisms,whichthrive intemperaturefrom20to44degreesCelsius (C),suchasbacteria,fungi,and

redworms. Pathogensinthewastearekilledbytheactivebacteriaandorganismsinthecompostand

thelongresidencetimethatthewastehasinthecomposter.

Acompostingtoiletneedsnitrogen,carbon,andoxygentofunctionproperly. Thetoiletwasteprovides

thenitrogenandtheventilationshaftprovidestheoxygen,butcarbonneedstobeaddedtothesystem.

Carboncanbeaddedintheformofanytypeofbulkingmaterial(woodshavings,etc.)thatwillpromote

good

aeration

and

moisture

levels

within

the

composter.

Biological

additives

are

available

that

speed

up

thecompostingprocess,whichmaybeusefulatthealpinehutsduetotherelativelyshortcomposting

season.

Threeendproductsare createdby thecomposter. The largestproduct is the compost,which looks,

feels,andsmellsliketopsoilandifcompostedproperly,issafetohandle. Solidcompostisremovedno

morethanonceperyear. Thesecondendproductisaconcentratedliquidthatisveryrichinnutrients

andcanbeaverybeneficialfertilizer.Liquid isseparated inthecompostingchamberafter itinfiltrates


26/60



January2010

20

throughthesolidsandcollectsinthebaseofthecompostingunit. Thisproductcansustainagricultural

productionwithouttheruinationofsoil. Thethirdendproductisgas. Carbondioxideandwatervapor

arebothproduced,butareharmlessas theyare the samegases thathumansexhale. If the toilet is

overloaded

and

not

maintained

properly,

hydrogen

sulfide

and

methane

can

be

produced

and

are

not

safeforhumaninhalation.

Without liquid separation, composting toilets can be compared to pit toilets as the liquids are not

treatedandpotentiallyhazardous. However, it isestimated that forevery100uses ina composting

toilet,only5gallonsofliquidwasteisgenerated. Mostliquidisutilizedinthecompostingprocessand

the remaining liquid can be collected in the base of the composting unit and flown out. If this

concentrated liquidweretoreachthesoil/rockcontactzone, itcreatesthepotential forgroundwater

contaminationsimilartopittoilets.

Regularmaintenancetothecompostingunitincludestheadditionofbulkingmaterial(onceweekly),4

12litersoffreshwaterperday,rakingandtheremovaloftheliquidendproduct(onceweekly). Aliquid

removal system is standard inmost composting toiletsand cangravity flow theproduct toa storagetankwhere it canbeapplied to soilvia irrigation. If soils irrigation isnotpossibledue to regulatory

requirements,theliquidwouldhavetoberemovedapproximatelyonceortwiceayear.

5.7.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Composting Toilets User Feedback

Duringthereviewofthisreport,manyexistinglodgeowner/operatorsrespondedwithpersonal

experiences with composting toilets. All feedback regarding the use and operation of

compostingtoiletswaspositive. Forexample,theAmiskwiLodge(northofGolden,BC)hastwo

compostingtoiletsthatarecurrentlyheatedwithasmallpropaneheater. Withtheexceptionof

the

rare

heater

failure,

the

toilets

have

been

working

exceptionally.

Approximately

2

3

barrels

ofcompostareremovedeveryyearandlandapplied. Odoursarecontrolledwithasmallfanin

the tank that forcesair througha4 inchexhaustpipeat the topof the roof. Usersand the

operatorarepleasedasodoursarenonexistentandthesystemisverylowmaintenance.

TheBurnieGlacierChaletusesachamberedsystemthat,accordingtotheowner,istreatingthe

waste throughanaerobicdigestion,which is the sameprocess inwhichwaste is treated ina

traditional septic tank. However, the customdesignof this facility,whichutilizesa concrete

floorpouredata30%slopetoalengthof4.5meters,appearstobesimilartoaPennsylvania

Composter. As described in the Backcountry Sanitation Manual (Appalachian Trail

Conference), this technology uses slow aerobic digestion, which is similar to that of the

moldering

privy.

Typically,

anaerobic

digestion

does

not

work

at

high

elevations

due

to

the

cold

temperatures and short duration of biological activity that only occur duringwarmmonths.

However, if locatedata lowenoughelevationandtemperaturesarewarmenough,anaerobic

digestion could potentially occur. Regardless of the treatmentmethod, theowner/operator

reportsthatthesystemisworkingwellandthatwastehasneverbeenflownoutandodoursare

notanissue.


27/60



January2010

21

Based on user feedback and other available resources, advantages and disadvantages to

compostingtoiletsaresummarizedbelow:

Advantages

Disadvantages

Waterlessflushwaterisnotrequired

Harmful nutrients and pathogens are

treatedandremoved

Wastevolumeisreducedby80% 90%

Endproductissterile

Does not require full time operator

Guests can apply carbon source (wood

chips)

Can handle higher usage than most

availablebackcountrytechnologies

RequiresheattocompostinWinter

Energysource isneededtopowerheaters

andfan.

Capacity is limitedtoavailable technology

andsizeofchamber

Potential forodorsand insects ifnotwell

ventilated

Waste needs to be mixed during

compostingprocess

Overloadedtoiletscanbeveryunpleasant

Woodchips

must

be

transported

to

site

Sterile end product is nutrient rich and

could change alpine ecology and plant

diversity

5.7.2 Alpine Option: Composting toilets + Liquid Evaporation + Barrel Fly-Out

The alpine composting toilet system option evaluated in this report includes an evaporation

tankandwaste flyoutwhennecessary. Due to theexposedbedrockand lackof soil in the

alpineregion, infiltrationof liquidwaste isnotfeasible. Anevaporationtank isproposedwith

thissystemtominimizetherequirednumberofbarrelflyoutsbyevaporatingtheliquidwaste

andsignificantly

reducing

the

overall

waste

volume.

AccordingtoWastewaterEngineeringbyMetcalfandEddy,typicalhumanwasteiscomposedof

over90%liquid. Throughtheuseofacompostingtoilet,theliquidwastecanbeseparatedfrom

the solidsandhandled separately. Anevaporation tankequippedwithminimalaerationand

heatand combinedwith thedryair conditions in thealpine regionwillbeable toevaporate

someofthe liquidwaste. Forthepurposesofthisevaluationthe followingassumptionshave

beenmadeaboutthissystem:

Volumeofwasteperpersonperday: 1.89liters(basedondataprovidedbyBEES)

Percentageofliquidinwaste: 90%

Percentageof

liquids

evaporated

in

evaporation

tank:

50%

Basedon theseassumptions thewastevolumecanbe reducedby45%. Thisalso results ina

45%reductioninrequiredbarrelflyouttrips. Figure5.5isaschematicofthealpinecomposting

toiletsystemdescribedhere. Thefigureshowstheadditional inputsrequiredforthissystems

operation. Bothheatandaerationcanbesuppliedfromelectricitygeneratedbyawindturbine


28/60



January2010

22

orotherpowersource. Thecompostingtoiletsystemcanutilizetheelectricitygeneratedbythe

turbinewhenitisnotbeingconsumedbyotherusesinthehutorlodge.

Evaporation

Tank

CompostingToilet (solids

composting)

Wastewater

Inputs

Liquids

Heat Heat Aeration

FlyOut

Liquid

Evaporation

FIGURE5.5 ALPINESYSTEMSCHEMATIC

5.7.2.1 Costs

The construction and total life cycle costsof the alpine composting toilet system have been

evaluatedforeachofthetwoapplicable locationsdiscussed inSection2ofthisreport. Table

5.9summarizestheresultsandSection6ofthisreportcomparesthecostsamongoptionsand

locations.

TABLE5.9

ALPINE

COMPOSTING

TOILET

SYSTEM

COSTS

LocationEstimated

ConstructionCost

EstimatedYearly

O&M

EstimatedLife

CycleCost

1: Alpine,100overnights $6,600 $430 $14,924


3: Subalpine,800overnights N/A N/A N/A


29/60



January2010

23

5.7.2.2 Environmental Impacts

TheenvironmentalimpactsdiscussedinSection2ofthisreporthavebeenevaluatedforthe

alpine

composting

toilet

option.

Table

5.10

summarizes

the

impacts,

rating

for

the

alpine

compostingtoiletsystem(0=lowimpact,5=highpotentialimpact)andnotesregardingthe

potentialimpactsofthesystem.

TABLE5.10 ALPINECOMPOSTINGTOILETSYSTEMENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS

Impact Rating Notes

UserHealthImpacts 2

Barrelexchangeisrequiredforthisoption,yetfrequency

betweenexchangeswillbelowerthanthebarrelflyoutoption.

Contactwithwasteisapotentialduringthisexchange. Barrel

flyoutcanalsobedangerousduringhighwindconditions.

WaterQualityImpacts 0 Wasteisseparatefromenvironment.

NonRenewableEnergy

Usage2

Nonrenewableenergyisrequiredtoflyoutbarrelsof

blackwater.

Aesthetics 3Visitormanagementofthewastebarrelsisnotdesirable,butis

lessfrequentthanthebarrelflyoutoption.

5.7.3 Sub-Alpine Option: Composting Toilet + Liquid Infiltration + Barrel Fly-Out

Thesub

alpine

blackwater

management

system

evaluated

in

this

report

is

similar

to

the

alpine

systemwith theexceptionofhow liquidsaremanaged. Thesubalpineregions typicallyhave

enough soil for the infiltration of liquidwaste on the site. Figure 5.6 is a schematicof the

evaluatedsubalpinecompostingtoiletsystem.

Drainfield

CompostingToilet(solidscomposting)Wastewater

Liquids

Heat

Inputs

FlyOut

FIGURE5.6 SUBALPINESYSTEMSCHEMATIC


30/60



January2010

24

Because liquidwastecanbemanagedonsitetheneedforbarrelflyoutscanbereducedeven

furtherthanthealpinesystem. Thefollowingassumptionshavebeenmaderegardingthesub

alpinesystemforthisreport:

Volumeofwasteperpersonperday: 1.89liters(basedondataprovidedbyBEES)

Percentageofliquidinwaste: 90%

Percentageofliquidsinfiltratedonsite: 100%

Basedon theseassumptions thewastevolumecanbe reducedby90%. Thisalso results ina

90%reductioninrequiredbarrelflytrips. Thissystemformanagingblackwatercansignificantly

decreasemanagementcostsandrequirements.

5.7.3.1 Costs

Theconstruction

and

total

life

cycle

costs

of

the

subalpine

composting

toilet

system

has

been

evaluated for the one applicable location discussed in Section 2 of this report. Table 5.11

summarizes the results and Section 6 of this report compares the costs among options and

locations.

TABLE5.11 SUBALPINECOMPOSTINGTOILETSYSTEMCOSTS

LocationEstimated

ConstructionCost

EstimatedYearly

O&M

EstimatedLife

CycleCost

1: Alpine,100overnights N/A N/A N/A

2:Alpine,

3000

overnights

N/A

N/A

N/A

3: Subalpine,800overnights $10,500 $198 $15,825


31/60



January2010

25

5.7.3.2 Environmental Impacts


subalpine

composting

toilet

option.

Table

5.12

summarizes

the

impacts,

rating

for

the

subalpine

composting toilet system (0=low impact, 5=high potential impact) and notes regarding the

potentialimpactsofthesystem.

TABLE5.12 SUBALPINECOMPOSTINGTOILETSYSTEMENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS

Impact Rating Notes

UserHealthImpacts 2

Barrelexchangeisrequiredforthisoption,yetfrequency

betweenexchangeswillbelowerthanthebarrelflyoutoption.

Contactwithwasteisapotentialduringthisexchange. Barrel

flyoutcanalsobedangerousduringhighwindconditions.

WaterQualityImpacts 2Liquidwastewillbeinfiltratedintothesitesoils. Wastecan

potentiallyrunoffintosurfacewateriftheinfiltrationfieldfails.

NonRenewableEnergy

Usage1

Nonrenewableenergyisrequiredtoflyoutbarrelsof

blackwater.

Aesthetics 2Visitormanagementofthewastebarrelsisnotdesirable,butis

lessfrequentthanthebarrelflyoutoption.

5.8 ENERGYSOURCESFORCOMPOSTINGTOILETS

Due to thepresenceofkatabaticwindsandminimal tree coverageatmanyof thealpinehuts,wind

turbinesare a feasibleenergy source consideration. An appropriately sizedwind turbineprovidesa

sufficientamountofelectricitythatisthenstoredinbatteries. Dependingontheneedsofthehut,this

electricity canbeused topower stoves,heatwater,heat the building, andprovide light. Once the

batteriesarefullychargedandelectricityisstillbeinggenerated,excesselectricity,orthedumpload

couldbe transferred toaheater inacompostingchamber. Anaeration fanandpumpcouldalsobe

poweredwith individualbatteriesandelectricitygeneratedfromthewindturbines. WorleyParsons is

currently conducting awind assessment at the BowHut to determine the feasibility ofwind power

source development (Ref:WorleyParsons,Dec. 2009Draft. Wind Turbine EvaluationforAlpine and

HighSubAlpineLocations.PreparedforBEES).

In situationswithwind speeds insufficient forwind turbine power generation, solar thermal power

generation could be considered. In solar thermal applications, sunlight is not converted directly to

electricity aswith photovoltaics. Instead, sunlight heats a glycolwatermixture that could then be

circulated throughanetworkofpipes in the composting chamber. According to theGlobalThermal

EnergyCouncilswebsite(www.solarthermalworld.org),thissolartechnology istypicallymoreefficient

thanphotovoltaicsasallthegeneratedheatistransferred,inthiscase,tothecompostingchamber. A

smallphotovoltaiccellwouldbenecessarytopoweranaerationfan.


32/60


BlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysisandComparison

January2010

26

6.0 BlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysisandComparison

6.1 COSTCOMPARISON

Theconstruction,annualoperationsandmaintenanceandtotallifecyclecostshavebeenestimatedand

comparedforeachofthehutlocationsidentified. DetailedcosttablescanbefoundinAppendicesA,B

andC. Figures6.1through6.3belowshowthecostsofthevariousblackwatermanagementoptionsfor

eachofthehutlocations.

FIGURE6.1 LOCATION1(ALPINE,100OVERNIGHTSPERYEAR)COSTCOMPARISON


33/60



January2010

27

$

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

$120,000.00

$140,000.00

ConstructionCost

AnnualO&M

TotalLifeCycleCost

FIGURE6.2 LOCATION2(ALPINE,3000OVERNIGHTSPERYEAR)COSTCOMPARISON

FIGURE6.3 LOCATION3(SUBALPINE,800OVERNIGHTSPERYEAR)COSTCOMPARISON


34/60



January2010

28

6.2 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSCOMPARISON

Alongwithcostconsiderations,theenvironmentalimpactofeachoptionwasconsidered. Forexample,

thecurrent

practice

of

barrel

fly

out

minimizes

all

water

quality

impacts,

but

the

fly

out

and

barrel

replacementprocesshaveconsiderableaestheticandenvironmental impacts. Environmental impacts

foralltheoptionsaresummarizedinFigure6.4.

FIGURE6.4 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSCOMPARISON


35/60


SummaryandRecommendations

January2010

29

7.0 SummaryandRecommendations

This report has reviewed a number of options for blackwater management at huts and lodges in

Canadas mountainous regions. Each option has considerable merit in different environmental

situations. It is important to consider that the hut users and operators do notwant a system that

destroys the senseof solitude in these areas, represents an irrationaluseof resources,ordoesnot

protect the spread of harmful pathogens. As a result, the goal of the recommended blackwater

managementsolutions inthisreport istoprotectwaterquality,preventnaturalresourcedamage,and

protecttheaestheticqualityofthehutanditspristineenvironmentallocation.

For the huts analyzed in this report, a combination system of a composting toilet, evaporation (or

infiltration),and flyoutsystem isrecommended. Thisoptiondoesrequirethe installationofapower

source

at

the

huts

to

generate

heat

for

composting

and

power

for

a

small

aeration

pump.

However,

this

powersource (solarorwind)willalsohavetheaddedbenefitofeliminatingthe flyin/outofpropane

tanks. Excesspower not used for cooking and heating, or the dump load can be directed to the

compostingunitstoheatthechamber.

AsshowninSection6,thecompostingtoiletisalowcostalternativesuitableforallthreeenvironmental

locations, provided a power source is available to provide heat to the composting process. In the

absenceofpowersourcedevelopmentatthehuts,therecommendedoptionwilldependontheusage

and location of the hut. For example, at the highuse alpine hut, pit toilets are the lowest cost.

However, due to the associated environmental impacts, this is not a recommended option. In this

situation,thecontinueduseofbarrelflyoutswouldlikelybetherecommendedalternative.

Eachofthefiveblackwatermanagementoptionshasuniquesituationscriticaltosuccess:

PitToiletsDeepsoils,largelandareaforreplacement,moderateusageandclimates.

BarrelFlyOutsThinsoils,alpinehut,minimallandareaavailable,accessiblebyhelicopter

IncineratingToilet Lowuseor singleuser toilets,minimal landarea,minimalwater supply,

largepowerrequirements,urineseparationforhighcapacitytoilets,dailymaintenance

CarryOutLowuse,nonpermanentstructures,backpackinguses,responsibleusers

Composting

power

source

to

provide

heat,

alpine

and

subalpine

environments

All blackwater management solutions can be successfully implemented if site conditions meet the

requirementsofthetechnology. Properplanningateachsiteiscriticaltodeterminethesizeanduseof

each facility toprevent againstoverloading and system abuse. The currentpractices atAlpineClub

facilities are working, but put a strain on the maintenance staff. Alternative solutions have been

providedinthisreportthatcanleadtoalowermaintenancesystem,reducedbarrelflyoutsandlower

operatingcosts.


36/60


SummaryandRecommendations

January2010

30

StantecConsultingandtheSDConsultingGrouphaveenjoyedworkingwithBEESandtheAlpineClubon

thisprojectandweappreciatetheeffortsandinformationsuppliedbyKarenandJonRollins(BEES). Our

groupstrivestoengineer innovativesolutionsforremotebackcountryoperations. Wearegratefulfor

projectssuch

as

these

as

they

provide

us

with

an

opportunity

for

innovation

and

creative

thinking.

We

lookforwardtoworkingwithyouagaininthefuture.


37/60


References

January2010

31

8.0 References

AlpineClubofCanadaWater,EnergyandWasteManagementinAlpineSheltersSymposium,1992,

NotesfromaCanadianConference.205pp.

AppalachianTrailConference,April2001,BackcountrySanitationManual.213pp.

BEES,SelkirkCollegeSchoolofRenewableResources,May12,2008,Energy,WaterandWaste

ManagementInventoryofBackcountryFacilities:APilotStudy.,58pp.

DelPorto,DavidandCarolSteinfeld,May2000,CompostingToiletSystemsBook:APracticalGuideto

Choosing,Planning,andMaintainingCompostingToiletSystems.CenterforEcologicalPollution

Prevention,240pp.

Goymann,Melanie,Wittenwiler,Mathias,andStefanieHellweg,October31,2007,Environmental

DecisionSupportfortheConstructionofaGreenMountainHut.,EnvironmentalScienceTechnology,8

pp.

GlobalThermalEnergyCouncil(www.solarthermalworld.org).

Kadlec,RobertandScottWallace,July2008,TreatmentWetlandsSecondAddition.CRC,1016pp.

MetcalfandEddyInc.,May1,2002,WastewaterEngineeringTreatmentandReuse.,McGrawHill

HigherEducation,1408pp.

NationalSanitationFoundation,1999,NonLiquidSaturatedTreatmentSystemsAmericanNational

Standard/NSFInternationalStandard.,19pp.

Rollins,Jon,2005/2006,AnInventoryofAlpineClubofCanadaHutSitesintheCanadianRockies,Purcell,

andSelkirkMountains,30pp.

UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgricultureForestryService,May1995,RemoteWasteManagement.,32

pp.

WorleyParsons,Dec.2009Draft.WindTurbineEvaluationforAlpineandHighSubAlpineLocations.

PreparedforBEES).


38/60


39/60

BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysisJanuary2010

1

AppendixALocation

1

Cost

Tables

(Alpine,

100

overnights/year)


40/60


41/60

Stantec

4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140

WhiteBearLake,MN55127

Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060

ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE

PitToiletMaterials 1 ls 2,500$ 2,500$

MaterialsDelivery 1 ls 1,500$ 1,500$

CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 4,000$

Pittoiletrelocation 4 hours 100$ 400$

Toiletrepairandmaintenance 2 hours 100$ 200$

ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 400$

PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 100% Replacement 4,000$ 4,000$

PresentWorth

of

Annual

O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 6,516$

TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 14,516$

Notes:

1)Assumespittoiletismovedevery6years

2)Assumesmaterialscanbetransportedbyonehelicoptertrip

3)Assumespittoiletmustbecompletelyreplaced1timein30yearlife

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

PitToilets

TableA.1

Location1(Alpine,100Overnights/Year)

Copyright2009


42/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060


Bathroom/ToiletMaterials 1 ls 7,500$ 7,500$



StaffingandTransportation 1 ls 500$ 500$

BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 100 visitors 15.00$ 1,500$

ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 2,000$


PresentWorth

of

Annual

O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 32,578$


Notes:

1)BarrelflyoutcostbasedoncurrentannualcostinformationprovidedbyBEES

2)Assumesmaterialscanbetransportedinonehelicoptertrip

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

BarrelFlyOuts

TableA.2


Copyright2009


43/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060

ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICEIncineratingToilet 1 units 7,500$ 7,500$

ToiletDelivery 1 ls 1,500$ 1,500$

CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 9,000$AshRemoval 2 hours 75$ 150$

Propane+Delivery 8.5 gallons 10$ 1,585$

ToiletRepairandMaintenance 2 hrs 75$ 150$

ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 1,885$Present

Worth

Capital

Replacement 20% Replacement 9,000$

1,800$

PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 30,705$

TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 41,505$Notes:

1)Assumestoiletcanbedeliveredinonehelicoptertrip

2)IncineratingtoiletcostbasedoninformationprovidedbyEcoJohn 3)Doesnotincludewagesforfulltimecustodian *LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer'sOpinion

of

Cost

IncineratingToiletsTableA.3Location1(Alpine,100Overnights/Year)

Copyright2009


44/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060

ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE

CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL $

EducationlProgramming 10 hours 25.00$ 250$

CarryoutBags 100 people 2.50$ 250$


PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 100% Replacement $ $



Assumptions:

1)CarryoutbagsbasedoncostofWagBagsDryToilets

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

CarryOut

TableA.4


Copyright2009


45/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060


CompostingToilet 1 units 4,000$ 4,000$

EvaporationTank 50 impgallons 2.00$ 100$

HeatingandAerationEquipment 1 ls 1,000$ 1,000$



Staffingandtransportation 1 ls 350$ 350$

BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 100 visitors 0.80$ 80$





Notes:

1)Assumescompostingtoiletandtankcanbedeliveredinonehelicoptertri

2)Assumesanelectricalsupplywillbeavailableforthecompostingtoiletandevaporationtank(notincludedincostestimate)

3)Electricalsupplycomponentsandtransmissionisnotincludedinconstructioncost

4)CompostingtoiletcostbasedonSunMarextrahighcapacitynonelectricdrycompostingtoilet

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

CompostingToiletswithLiquidEvaporationandBarrelFlyout

TableA.5


Copyright2009


46/60


47/60


References

January2010

2

AppendixB

Location2CostTables(Alpine,3000UsersperYear)


48/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060





Pittoiletrelocation 24 hours 100$ 2,400$




PresentWorth

of

Annual

O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 39,093$


Notes:

1)Assumespittoiletismovedeveryotheryear



*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

PitToilets

B.1


Copyright2009


49/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060









PresentWorth

of

Annual

O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 89,589$


Notes:


2)Assumes materialscanbetransportedintwohelicoptertrips

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

BarrelFlyOuts

B.2


Copyright2009


50/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060


IncineratingToilet 1 units 10,000$ 10,000$



AshRemoval 8 hours 75$ 600$

Propane+Delivery 255 gallons 10$ 4,050$



PresentWorth

Capital


2,300$



Notes:


2)IncineratingtoiletcostbasedoninformationprovidedbyEcoJohn

3)Doesnotincludewagesforfulltimecustodian

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

IncineratingToilets

TableB.3


Copyright2009


51/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060




CarryoutBags 3000 people 2.50$ 7,500$





Assumptions:


Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

CarryOut

TableB.4


Copyright2009


52/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060


CompostingToilet 1 units 4,000$ 4,000$

EvaporationTank 500 impgallons 2.00$ 1,000$

HeatingandAerationEquipment 1 ls 1,000$ 1,000$









Notes:

1)Assumescompostingtoiletandtankcanbedeliveredintwohelicoptertrips

2)Assumesanelectricalsupplywillbeavailableforthecompostingtoiletandevaporationtank(notincludedincostestimate)

3)Electricalsupplycomponentsandtransmissionisnotincludedinconstructioncost

4)CompostingtoiletcostbasedonSunMarextrahighcapacitynonelectricdrycompostingtoilet

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

CompostingToiletswithLiquidEvaporationandBarrelFlyout

TableB.5


Copyright2009


53/60


54/60


References

January2010

3

AppendixC

Location3CostTables(Subalpine,800usersperyear)


55/60


56/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060





Pittoiletrelocation 12 hours 100$ 1,200$




PresentWorth

of

Annual

O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 19,547$


Notes:

1)Assumespittoiletismovedeveryfourthyear



*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

PitToilets

TableC.1

Location3(Subalpine,800Overnights/Year)

Copyright2009


57/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060









PresentWorth

of

Annual

O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 53,102$


Notes:


2)Assumes materialscanbetransportedintwohelicoptertrips

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

BarrelFlyOuts

TableC.2


Copyright2009


58/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060


IncineratingToilet 1 units 7,500$ 7,500$



AshRemoval 8 hours 75$ 600$

Propane+Delivery 68 gallons 10$ 2,180$



PresentWorth

Capital


1,800$



Notes:


2)IncineratingtoiletcostbasedoninformationprovidedbyEcoJohn

3)Doesnotincludewagesforfulltimecustodian

*LS=LumpSumCosting

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

IncineratingToilets

TableC.3


Copyright2009


59/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060




CarryoutBags 800 people 2.50$ 2,000$





Assumptions:


Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost

CarryOut

TableC.4


Copyright2009


60/60

Stantec



Phone6512555050

Fax6512555060


CompostingToilet(oneunit) 1 ls 4,000$ 4,000$

Drainfield(sizedfor50gpd) 1 ls 3,500$ 3,500$




BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 800 visitors 0.16$ 128$


PresentWorth

Capital


2,100$



Assumptions:

1)Assumescompostingtoiletanddrainfieldcanbedeliveredinonehelicoptertrip

2)Assumesanelectricalsupplywillbeavailableforthecompostingtoilet(notincludedincostestimate)

3)Electricalsupplycomponentsandtransmissionisnotincludedinconstrucitoncost

4)CompostingtoiletcostbasedonSunMarextrahighcapacitynonelectricdrycompostingtoilets

*LS=LumpSumCosting

TableC.5CompostingToiletswithLiquidInfiltrationandBarrelFlyOuts

Engineer's

Opinion

of

Cost


bees ww analysis_final

Documents