Upload
geoff-hill
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
1/60
BackcountryBlackwa
ManagementOptions
Anal
BackcountryEnergyEnvironmentalSolu
January
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
2/60
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
3/60
PROJECTNO.
191810077
REPORTTO BackcountryEnergyEnvironmentalSolutions(BEES)
FOR BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
PRINCIPALCONTACT KarenRollins
BEES
January2010
StantecConsultingLtd.
Edmonton,AB
780969226
SDConsultingGroupCanada,Inc
Calgary,AB
SaintPaul,MN
6122097366
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
4/60
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
6/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
7/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
8/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
9/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
10/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
11/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
12/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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:
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
13/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
14/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
15/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
ExistingSiteConditions
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
16/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
ExistingSiteConditions
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
17/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
18/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
19/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
January2010
13
5.3.3 Environmental Impacts
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
20/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
1: Alpine,100overnights $9,000 $2,000 $43,378
2: Alpine,3000overnights $10,500 $5,500 $102,189
3: Subalpine,800overnights $10,500 $3,260 $65,702
5.4.2 Environmental Impacts
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
21/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
22/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
2: Alpine,3000overnights $11,500 $5,250 $99,317
3: Subalpine,800overnights $9,000 $3,380 $65,856
5.5.3 Environmental Impacts
Theenvironmental impactsdiscussed in Section2of this reporthavebeenevaluated for the
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
23/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
24/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
5.6.2 Environmental Impacts
Theenvironmental impactsdiscussed in Section2of this reporthavebeenevaluated for the
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
25/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
26/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
27/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
28/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
2: Alpine,3000overnights $12,000 $2,750 $59,194
3: Subalpine,800overnights N/A N/A N/A
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
29/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
30/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
31/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptions
January2010
25
5.7.3.2 Environmental Impacts
Theenvironmental impactsdiscussed in Section2of this reporthavebeenevaluated for the
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
32/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
33/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysisandComparison
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
34/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
BlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysisandComparison
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
35/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
36/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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.
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
37/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
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).
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
38/60
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
39/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysisJanuary2010
1
AppendixALocation
1
Cost
Tables
(Alpine,
100
overnights/year)
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
40/60
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
42/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
Bathroom/ToiletMaterials 1 ls 7,500$ 7,500$
MaterialsDelivery 1 ls 1,500$ 1,500$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 9,000$
StaffingandTransportation 1 ls 500$ 500$
BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 100 visitors 15.00$ 1,500$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 2,000$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 20% Replacement 9,000$ 1,800$
PresentWorth
of
Annual
O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 32,578$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 43,378$
Notes:
1)BarrelflyoutcostbasedoncurrentannualcostinformationprovidedbyBEES
2)Assumesmaterialscanbetransportedinonehelicoptertrip
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
BarrelFlyOuts
TableA.2
Location1(Alpine,100Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
43/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
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
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
44/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL $
EducationlProgramming 10 hours 25.00$ 250$
CarryoutBags 100 people 2.50$ 250$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 500$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 100% Replacement $ $
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 8,144$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 8,144$
Assumptions:
1)CarryoutbagsbasedoncostofWagBagsDryToilets
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
CarryOut
TableA.4
Location1(Alpine,100Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
45/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
CompostingToilet 1 units 4,000$ 4,000$
EvaporationTank 50 impgallons 2.00$ 100$
HeatingandAerationEquipment 1 ls 1,000$ 1,000$
MaterialsDelivery 1 ls 1,500$ 1,500$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 6,600$
Staffingandtransportation 1 ls 350$ 350$
BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 100 visitors 0.80$ 80$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 430$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 20% Replacement 6,600$ 1,320$
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 7,004$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 14,924$
Notes:
1)Assumescompostingtoiletandtankcanbedeliveredinonehelicoptertri
2)Assumesanelectricalsupplywillbeavailableforthecompostingtoiletandevaporationtank(notincludedincostestimate)
3)Electricalsupplycomponentsandtransmissionisnotincludedinconstructioncost
4)CompostingtoiletcostbasedonSunMarextrahighcapacitynonelectricdrycompostingtoilet
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
CompostingToiletswithLiquidEvaporationandBarrelFlyout
TableA.5
Location1(Alpine,100Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
46/60
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
47/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
References
January2010
2
AppendixB
Location2CostTables(Alpine,3000UsersperYear)
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
48/60
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 24 hours 100$ 2,400$
Toiletrepairandmaintenance 8 hours 100$ 800$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 2,400$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 100% Replacement 4,000$ 4,000$
PresentWorth
of
Annual
O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 39,093$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 47,093$
Notes:
1)Assumespittoiletismovedeveryotheryear
2)Assumesmaterialscanbetransportedbyonehelicoptertrip
3)Assumespittoiletmustbecompletelyreplaced1timein30yearlife
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
PitToilets
B.1
Location2(Alpine,3000Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
49/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
Bathroom/ToiletMaterials 1 ls 7,500$ 7,500$
MaterialsDelivery 1 ls 3,000$ 3,000$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 10,500$
StaffingandTransportation 1 ls 700$ 700$
BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 3000 visitors 1.60$ 4,800$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 5,500$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 20% Replacement 10,500$ 2,100$
PresentWorth
of
Annual
O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 89,589$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 102,189$
Notes:
1)BarrelflyoutcostbasedoncurrentannualcostinformationprovidedbyBEES
2)Assumes materialscanbetransportedintwohelicoptertrips
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
BarrelFlyOuts
B.2
Location2(Alpine,3000Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
50/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
IncineratingToilet 1 units 10,000$ 10,000$
ToiletDelivery 1 ls 1,500$ 1,500$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 11,500$
AshRemoval 8 hours 75$ 600$
Propane+Delivery 255 gallons 10$ 4,050$
ToiletRepairandMaintenance 8 hrs 75$ 600$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 5,250$
PresentWorth
Capital
Replacement 20% Replacement 11,500$
2,300$
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 85,517$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 99,317$
Notes:
1)Assumestoiletcanbedeliveredinonehelicoptertrip
2)IncineratingtoiletcostbasedoninformationprovidedbyEcoJohn
3)Doesnotincludewagesforfulltimecustodian
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
IncineratingToilets
TableB.3
Location2(Alpine,3000Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
51/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL $
EducationlProgramming 20 hours 25.00$ 500$
CarryoutBags 3000 people 2.50$ 7,500$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 8,000$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 100% Replacement $ $
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 130,311$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 130,311$
Assumptions:
1)CarryoutbagsbasedoncostofWagBagsDryToilets
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
CarryOut
TableB.4
Location2(Alpine,3000Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
52/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
CompostingToilet 1 units 4,000$ 4,000$
EvaporationTank 500 impgallons 2.00$ 1,000$
HeatingandAerationEquipment 1 ls 1,000$ 1,000$
MaterialsDelivery 1 ls 6,000$ 6,000$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 12,000$
Staffingandtransportation 1 ls 350$ 350$
BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 3000 visitors 0.80$ 2,400$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 2,750$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 20% Replacement 12,000$ 2,400$
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 44,794$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 59,194$
Notes:
1)Assumescompostingtoiletandtankcanbedeliveredintwohelicoptertrips
2)Assumesanelectricalsupplywillbeavailableforthecompostingtoiletandevaporationtank(notincludedincostestimate)
3)Electricalsupplycomponentsandtransmissionisnotincludedinconstructioncost
4)CompostingtoiletcostbasedonSunMarextrahighcapacitynonelectricdrycompostingtoilet
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
CompostingToiletswithLiquidEvaporationandBarrelFlyout
TableB.5
Location2(Alpine,3000Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
53/60
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
54/60
BackcountryBlackwaterManagementOptionsAnalysis
References
January2010
3
AppendixC
Location3CostTables(Subalpine,800usersperyear)
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
55/60
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
56/60
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 12 hours 100$ 1,200$
Toiletrepairandmaintenance 8 hours 100$ 800$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 1,200$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 100% Replacement 4,000$ 4,000$
PresentWorth
of
Annual
O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 19,547$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 27,547$
Notes:
1)Assumespittoiletismovedeveryfourthyear
2)Assumesmaterialscanbetransportedbyonehelicoptertrip
3)Assumespittoiletmustbecompletelyreplaced1timein30yearlife
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
PitToilets
TableC.1
Location3(Subalpine,800Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
57/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
Bathroom/ToiletMaterials 1 ls 7,500$ 7,500$
MaterialsDelivery 1 ls 3,000$ 3,000$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 10,500$
StaffingandTransportation 1 ls 700$ 700$
BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 800 visitors 3.20$ 2,560$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 3,260$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 20% Replacement 10,500$ 2,100$
PresentWorth
of
Annual
O&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 53,102$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 65,702$
Notes:
1)BarrelflyoutcostbasedoncurrentannualcostinformationprovidedbyBEES
2)Assumes materialscanbetransportedintwohelicoptertrips
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
BarrelFlyOuts
TableC.2
Location3(Subalpine,800Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
58/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
IncineratingToilet 1 units 7,500$ 7,500$
ToiletDelivery 1 ls 1,500$ 1,500$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 9,000$
AshRemoval 8 hours 75$ 600$
Propane+Delivery 68 gallons 10$ 2,180$
ToiletRepairandMaintenance 8 hrs 75$ 600$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 3,380$
PresentWorth
Capital
Replacement 20% Replacement 9,000$
1,800$
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 55,056$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 65,856$
Notes:
1)Assumestoiletcanbedeliveredinonehelicoptertrip
2)IncineratingtoiletcostbasedoninformationprovidedbyEcoJohn
3)Doesnotincludewagesforfulltimecustodian
*LS=LumpSumCosting
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
IncineratingToilets
TableC.3
Location3(Subalpine,800Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
59/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL $
EducationlProgramming 20 hours 25.00$ 500$
CarryoutBags 800 people 2.50$ 2,000$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 2,500$
PresentWorthCapitalReplacement 100% Replacement $ $
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 40,722$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 40,722$
Assumptions:
1)CarryoutbagsbasedoncostofWagBagsDryToilets
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
CarryOut
TableC.4
Location3(Subalpine,800Overnights/Year)
Copyright2009
8/8/2019 BEES WW Analysis_Final
60/60
Stantec
4444CentervilleRoad,Suite140
WhiteBearLake,MN55127
Phone6512555050
Fax6512555060
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT* UNITPRICE TOTALPRICE
CompostingToilet(oneunit) 1 ls 4,000$ 4,000$
Drainfield(sizedfor50gpd) 1 ls 3,500$ 3,500$
MaterialsDelivery 1 ls 3,000$ 3,000$
CONSTRUCTIONSUBTOTAL 10,500$
Staffingandtransportation 1 ls 70$ 70$
BarrelFlyOut(HelicopterandPumperTruck) 800 visitors 0.16$ 128$
ANNUALOPERATIONANDMAINTENANCECOSTS 198$
PresentWorth
Capital
Replacement 20% Replacement 10,500$
2,100$
PresentWorthofAnnualO&M 30 yr @ 4.5% 3,225$
TOTALLIFECYCLECOSTS 15,825$
Assumptions:
1)Assumescompostingtoiletanddrainfieldcanbedeliveredinonehelicoptertrip
2)Assumesanelectricalsupplywillbeavailableforthecompostingtoilet(notincludedincostestimate)
3)Electricalsupplycomponentsandtransmissionisnotincludedinconstrucitoncost
4)CompostingtoiletcostbasedonSunMarextrahighcapacitynonelectricdrycompostingtoilets
*LS=LumpSumCosting
TableC.5CompostingToiletswithLiquidInfiltrationandBarrelFlyOuts
Engineer's
Opinion
of
Cost
Location3(Subalpine,800Overnights/Year)