Karen Rollins - Backcountry Black Water Management Options Analysis

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

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

3. Black Water Management Options
1. Pit toilet
2. Barrel fly-out
3. Incinerating toilet
4. Carry-out
5. Heated chamber
composting toilet
– alpine
– subalpine
Alpine Composting
- urine separation
- urine evaporation
- solids composted
- 80% reduced
Subalpine Composting
- urine separation
- urine treated on site
- solids composted
- 90% reduced

4. Costs
– Construction
– Operation and
maintenance
– Total life cycle
Analysis
Environmental Impacts
0 to 5 rating
1. User health (potential for
personal contact)
2. Water quality (ground and
surface water)
3. Non-renewable energy use
(diesel, propane, fuel)
4. Aesthetics (odours, visual
impacts)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Conclusions
• Barrel fly out and incinerating are generally more costly
than other options
• Carry out works best in locations that receive low use,
but becomes increasingly expensive in locations that
receive high use
• Composting toilets cost less and have fewer
environmental impacts than barrel fly out or incineration
and are viable options in most locations
• There is not one perfect black water management
solution for every location

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

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

25. Urine Separation
Urine Facts:
1. Urine is sterile
2. There is less odour when urine and solids are
separated
3. 90% of sewage is urine (literature)
4. Little field research to validate
1. Bugaboos Mass Balance
1. Barrel fly out (regular) = 0.63kg/use
2. Urine Diversion (urinal & seat) =
0.03kg/use

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

27. www.beeshive.org