1 / 44

Water and Waste Management Systems for Stanford University’s Green Dorm

Water and Waste Management Systems for Stanford University’s Green Dorm. Final Design Presentation. Client: Dr. Sandy Robertson, Stanford Green Dorm. LCC Design, Inc. Christine George Charlotte Helvestine Leah Yelverton. Friday, June 8, 2007. Organization.

sakina
Download Presentation

Water and Waste Management Systems for Stanford University’s Green Dorm

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Water and Waste Management Systems for Stanford University’s Green Dorm Final Design Presentation Client: Dr. Sandy Robertson, Stanford Green Dorm LCC Design, Inc. Christine George Charlotte Helvestine Leah Yelverton Friday, June 8, 2007

  2. Organization I. Project Goals and Organization II. Final Design Schematic III. Water Balance IV. Regulations V. Greywater System VI. Blackwater System VII. Green Roof and Rainwater Harvesting VIII. Conclusions: Living Laboratory

  3. I. Project Goals and Organization

  4. Design Goals • Provide plans for a water and waste management system that meets the public demand • Minimize (1) the environmental impacts of the building, and (2) the net usage of water by outlining methods for water treatment and reuse • Maximize (1) the opportunities for research and education, and (2) user health, safety, and satisfaction • Greywater Reuse System • Blackwater System • Green Roof and Rainwater Harvesting Proposed Technologies

  5. Proposed Approach Initial Water Balance (Entire LCC Design team) Greywater Reuse System Blackwater System Green Roof and Rainwater Harvesting (Christine George) (Leah Yelverton) (Charlotte Helvestine) For each system, each individual will: 1. Determine regulations/restrictions, 2. Explore design options, 3. Assess environmental impacts of “green” approach vs. traditional technologies, 4. Explore operation/maintenance requirements of system Final Adjusted Water Balance (Entire LCC Design team) Comparison to initial design goals

  6. II. Final Design Schematic

  7. III. Water Balance

  8. Base Data:American Water Works Association Residential End Use Survey JBM Stanford-Specific Adjustments: - modified Toilet Flow to reflect 1.5 gpf toilets - combined Bath and Shower use - separated Kitchen Faucet from Bathroom Faucet LCC Adjustments: - Stanford Water Use Survey: toilet flushes and laundry loads - Laundry and Toilet technologies LCC Design Modifications 1SeaLand Microflush Toilet 2Wost Man Ecology EB Dual-Flush Urine-Diverting Toilet 3CEE 179C Stanford Water Use Survey 4 New York City Council. Water Conservation Plan Facts. 2002. Available Online: <http://www.nyccouncil.info/pdf_files/reports/waterfacts.pdf> Accessed 3 June 2007.

  9. LCC Final Water Balance

  10. IV. Regulations

  11. Greywater Regulations • Requires Tertiary Treatment Level • Toilet Flushing • Laundry Reuse • Subsurface Irrigations • Filtration size 115 microns • A minimum of 6 inches of soil cover over the dispersal system • Closed loop distribution lines, periodic flushing • All distribution lines should be the color purple to identify it as a non-potable water • Issued operation permit

  12. V. Greywater System

  13. Greywater Design Overview • Benefits of Greywater System • Reduce Water Potable Usage • Reduce Ecological Footprint • Proposed Designs • Subsurface Irrigation • Toilet Flushing/Laundry Reuse

  14. Subsurface Irrigation Automatic Greywater Filtration System for Subsurface Irrigation • Irrigation Treatment Design • Gravity tank and a backwashing sand filter • Filter size 115 microns • Advantages • Removal of heavy and floating particles1 • Pathogen reduction1 1. O.R. Al-Jayyousi, Greywater reuse: towards sustainable water management, Desalination 156(2003) 181-192

  15. Equaris System • Equaris Total Household Water Recycling and Wastewater Treatment System • Biological treatment, membrane filters and UV disinfection1 • Provides tertiary level water treatment2 • Capacity: 1500 gpd, 3 systems2 • Cost: 75,000 dollars plus installation cost3 • Footprint: 120 cubic feet1 Equaris Total Household Water Recycling and Wastewater Treatment1 • 1 Equaris Corporation. Water Recycling System. <http://www.equaris.com/default.asp?Page=Disinfection> • 2 Elston, Clint. Today’s Fuel Cell and Cell Phone of Water and Wastewater Treatment. <http://www.equaris.com/ppt/05-0605AWRAPaperwithCaptions.pdf> • 3 Equaris Corporation. Price List. <http://www.equaris.com/default.asp?Page=PriceList>

  16. Z-MOD S • Z-MOD S • Packaged Treatment System1 • ZeeWeed MBR • UV disinfection • Capacity: 2900 gpd1 • Provides tertiary level water treatment • Footprint: 845 square feet1 Z-MOD S: Below Ground Packaged Plant2 1 Zenon Membrane Solutions. GE Water and Process Technologies. The Earth Rangers Centre. <http://www.zenon.com/PDF/Case%20Studies/Products/Packaged%20Plants/Z-MOD/Z-MOD%20S/ZMOD%20S%20Earth%20Rangers% 20Case%20Study.pdf> 2 Zenon Membrane Solutions. GE Water and Process Technologies. Z-MOD S Below Ground Packaged Plant Specifications. <http://www.zenon.com/products/packaged_systems/Z-MOD/Z-MOD_type_s_below_ground.shtml>

  17. Aqua Reviva • Aqua Reviva • Packaged treatment option 1 • Steel control box • Biological treatment in treatment cell • Cost: 90,000-135,000 dollars2 • Capacity: 1665 gallons/day, 9 systems3 • Footprint:142 square4 Treatment System and Control Box 4 1 Aqua Reviva. Product Specifications. <http://www.aquareviva.com.au/product_info.asp> 2 Aqua Reviva. Prices. <http://www.aquareviva.com.au/prices.asp> 3 Aqua Reviva. How It Works. <http://www.aquareviva.com.au/how_it_works.asp> 4 Aqua Reviva. Photos and Diagrams. <http://www.aquareviva.com.au/photos.asp>

  18. Design Comparison

  19. Design Comparison References

  20. VI. Blackwater System

  21. What is Blackwater?

  22. Blackwater = an untapped resource Nutrients Energy

  23. Nutrient content of human waste Nutrients produced by one person in one day. Swedish EPA. 1995b. “What does household wastewater contain? Report 4425, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden. Ligman, K., Hutzler, N. and Boyle, W. “Household Wastewater Characterization.” Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division. Feb 1974. Jonsson, H., Stenstrom, T-A., Svensson, J., and Sundin, A. “Source separated urine – nutrient and heavy metal content, water saving and faecal contamination. Wat Sci and Tech. 35(9) pp. 145-152. Del Porto, D. and Seinfeld, C. The Composting Toilet System Book. Center for Ecological Pollution Prevention. Massachusetts, USA. 2000. Henze, M. “Waste design for households with respect to water, organics and nutrients. Wat Sci and Tech. 35(9) pp. 113-120

  24. Energy potential of human waste C6 H12 O6 3CH4 + 3CO2 0.35 liters CH4 / g COD Based on correspondence with Sara Marks and Sandy Robertson.

  25. Technologies Considered Urine-diverting Toilet Composting Toilet Anaerobic Digester and MBR

  26. Standard Toilet Source Sewer Scenario 1: “Business as usual” Inflow volume = 37 L / ppd Discharge vol. = 38 L / ppd CH4 potential = 17 L / ppd

  27. Urine to Storage Urine-diverting Toilet Source Feces to Sewer Scenario 2: Urine-diverting toilets Discharge volume = 6 L / ppd CH4 potential = 12 L / ppd Inflow volume = 6.4 L / ppd Urine storage vol. = 2 L / ppd

  28. Scenario 3: Composting toilets Compost to Garden Micro-flush Toilet Composter Source Leachate to Sewer Inflow volume = 3 L / ppd Discharge volume = 4 L / ppd CH4 potential = 0.2 L / ppd *Based on leachate nutrient estimates from one study. Lee, T., K. Crawford, and T. Hill. “Analysis of Monitoring Results of the Separation and Graywater Treatment System at Chester Woods Park, Olmsted County, Minn.” Olmsted County Water Resources Center. Rochester, MN.

  29. Comparison of Scenarios *These numbers have a high degree of error and do not include nutrient losses.

  30. The 4th Scenario? optimizing choice of urine-diverting and composting toilets • Value of urine and compost • Value of natural gas • Research opportunities

  31. Picture Sources • Kitchen sink = http://www.inmagine.com/house-proud-photos/digitalvision-dv812 • Toilet = http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watercon/images/ASChampionSkyline.jpg • Sewage = http://www.oceannet.org/medag/images/sewage_pipe.jpg • Tree = http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watercon/images/ASChampionSkyline.jpg • Gas = http://picturethis.pnl.gov/PictureT.nsf/All/4VXNUE?opendocument • Bacteria = http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/epidemic/naturalhistory.html • Anaerobic digester = http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~jiqin/PhotoDigester/Digester1.jpg

  32. VII. Green Roof and Rainwater Harvesting

  33. Goals of the Stanford Green Roof and Rainwater Harvesting System • Reduced Stormwater Runoff • Rainwater Capture and Reuse • Thermal Benefits • Research Opportunities Cross-section of Green Roof Extensive Green Roof in North Carolina Bass, Brad and Bas Baskaran. Evaluating Rooftop and Vertical Gardens as an Adaptation Strategy for Urban Areas. National Research Council Canada and Institute for Research in Construction. 2003. Amy Christine. A North Carolina Field Study to Evaluate Green Roof Runoff Quantity, Runoff Quality, and Plant Growth. North Carolina State University, 2004.

  34. Stormwater Retention • Benefits1 • Lower discharge volumes to sewer • Lower risk of combined-sewer overflow (CSO) • Expected Stormwater Retention • Compare to observed stormwater retention • Range of 55-70% annual retention2-4 • Mass-Balance modeling • Evapotranspiration + Runoff = Precipitation • Crop Coefficients5: ETc = ETo*Kc • 0.6 for intensive (warm-season turf), 0.25 for extensive (sedum groundcover)6 1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: Combined Sewer Overflows. < http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5> 2Moran, Amy Christine. A North Carolina Field Study to Evaluate Green Roof Runoff Quantity, Runoff Quality, and Plant Growth. North Carolina State University, 2004. 3Hutchinson, Doug et al. Stormwater Monitoring Two Ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon, USA. City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services. 2003. 4VanWoert, Nicholaus D. et al. Green Roof Stormwater Retention: Effects of Roof Surface, Slope, and Media Depth. Journal of Environmental Quality. 34, pg. 1036-1044. 2005. 5California Irrigation Management Information System. ET Overview. 2005. < http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/infoEtoOverview.jsp> 6California Department of Water Resources. A Guide to Estimating Irrigation Water Needs of Landscape Plantings in California. 2000. <http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/wucols00.pdf>

  35. Stormwater Retention Estimated runoff and retention from the different roofs.

  36. Rainwater Capture and Reuse • Benefits • Reduced demand of potable water • Reduced stormwater runoff • Quality Concerns • Green Roof Runoff • Substrate acts as sink for heavy metals1 • Compost can increase concentrations of N and P, which can lead to algae blooms and contamination1-3 • Reference Roof Runoff • Dissolved chemicals from roof material, atmospherically deposited microbes and chemicals4 • Treatment: minimum gravitational settling and mechanical filtration4 1Berndtsson, Justyna Czemiel et al. The Influence of Extensive Vegetated Roofs on Runoff Water Quality. Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 355 pg. 48-63. 2006. 2Hutchinson, Doug et al. Stormwater Monitoring Two Ecoroofs in Portland, Oregon, USA. City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services. 2003. 3Meera, V. et al. Water Quality of Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting Systems: A Review. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology – AQUA. 55.4, pg. 257-268. 2006. 4Texas Water Development Board and Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems. Texas Guide to Rainwater Harvesting, Second Edition. 1997.

  37. Rainwater Capture and Reuse Example green roof layout, based on Feasibility Study sketch1. 1EHDD Architecture and Stanford Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Green Dorm Feasibility Study. 2006. <http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/ greendorm/feasibility_study.html>

  38. Rainwater Capture and Reuse Intensive Roof 1400 sf 5,000 gallons annually Extensive Roof 1500 sf 8,000 gallons annually Reference Roof 7600 sf 52,500 gallons annually Laboratory Analysis Laboratory Analysis Laboratory Analysis Rainwater Storage Tank 15,000 gallons Suggested Flows of Harvested Rainwater • 65,000 gallons available annually (20% losses through leaks, filtration, treatment1) • 15,000-gallon tank to store dry season green roof irrigation demand2 • 50,000 gallons available (Oct-April) for toilet flushing, washing machines, and additional irrigation 1Texas Water Development Board and Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems. Texas Guide to Rainwater Harvesting, Second Edition. 1997. 2Rana Creek Living Architecture. Designing the California Academy of Sciences Living Roof: An Ecological Approach. 2005. <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/energy_expo /2005/pdfs/t_s7a.pdf>

  39. Thermal Benefits • Benefits1-3 • Reduced Roof Temperature • Reduces urban heat island effect and indoor temperature • Extends lifetime of roof • Reduced Heat Flux • Reduces space-conditioning energy demand • Estimated Heat Flux • Heat flow through insulation4: q = ΔT/R • q is the heat transfer (Btu/hr-ft2), ΔT is the difference between the outdoor and indoor temperatures, and R is the insulation value of the green roof (hr-ft2-ºF/Btu) • Assume indoor temp of 70F, average monthly maximum outdoor temperatures5, substrate insulation of R-3/inch6 1Bass, Brad et al. Evaluating Rooftop and Vertical Gardens as an Adaptation Strategy for Urban Areas. National Research Council Canada. 2003. 2United States Environmental Protection Agency. Vegetated Roof Cover: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. EPA Office of Water, Low-Impact Development Center. October 2000. 3Sonne, Jeff. Evaluating Green Roof Energy Performance. ASHRAE Journal. February 2006. 4Gil Masters. CEE 176A: Energy Efficient Buildings. Course Notes. 7 Jan 2007. 5California Irrigation Management Information System. Monthly: Station 132. http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/logon.do?forwardURL=/frontMonthlyReport&selTab=data 6Peck, Steven and Monica Kuhn. Design Guidelines for Green Roofs. Sponsored by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ontario Association of Architects.

  40. Thermal Benefits Estimated heat flux through the Stanford green roof for varying substrate depths during warm months. • Compare to reference roof heat flux of 2.1-2.8 Btu/hr-ft2(1,2) 1Bass, Brad et al. Evaluating Rooftop and Vertical Gardens as an Adaptation Strategy for Urban Areas. National Research Council Canada. 2003. 2Sonne, Jeff. Evaluating Green Roof Energy Performance. ASHRAE Journal. February 2006.

  41. VIII. Conclusions: Living Laboratory

  42. Living Laboratory: Research for the Future • Promote and refine water recycling technologies • Greywater • Monitor the quality of greywater as it changes over time • Experiment with different treatment technologies and their effects on quality • Blackwater • Explore waste as a resource. • Experimental systems provide ample opportunity for research of blackwater treatment and reuse. • Green Roof and Rainwater Harvesting • Test different vegetation and substrate materials/depths for their effects on stormwater retention, runoff quality, and thermal insulation • Experiment with blackwater-derived compost • Publicize sustainable water management for campuses and buildings worldwide

  43. Questions?

More Related