Where in the United States Can Dual-Flush Toilets Flush ...



centercenter 04/13-11/13Where in the United States Can Dual-Flush Toilets Flush Out Savings?A cost benefit analysis on dual-flush toilets for the United StatesAndrew NoviaskyMentor: Tony Tufano, Paul Smiths College Facilities Director 00 04/13-11/13Where in the United States Can Dual-Flush Toilets Flush Out Savings?A cost benefit analysis on dual-flush toilets for the United StatesAndrew NoviaskyMentor: Tony Tufano, Paul Smiths College Facilities Director 18230488177190A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources and Sustainability at Paul Smith’s College00A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources and Sustainability at Paul Smith’s College-895350845058000AbstractPotable water is becoming increasingly scarce in water poor regions of the United States. Reducing the volume of potable water consumed residentially and commercially is vital to ensure a stable water dependent future. Converting a traditional single-flush toilet into a dual-flush toilet is arguably the most effective means for reducing wastewater production in both residential and commercial settings. The objective of this study was to determine where within the United States dual-flush retrofits are cost effective. A cost-benefit analysis illustrating the price of the dual-flush retrofits & the monetary value of the water conserved post installation will be created using Paul Smith’s College campus of northern New York State as a testing site. The study will utilize a total of 145 toilets for both commercial and residential settings. Costs of the installation and purchasing of the product will be used to determine pay-back period and thus, the economic benefit of installing dual-flush toilets. Secondary data from previously completed dual-flush studies determined where within the 50 states dual-flush retrofits are cost effective. The resulting data illustrated relatively long payback periods for the greater United States with the most dramatic differences being seen in Hawaii and the least in Nebraska. AcknowledgmentsThis capstone would not have been possible if it were not for the hard work and dedication of my mentor and friend Mr. Tony Tufano. Mr. Tufano provided me with the drive and direction necessary to complete this capstone. I would also like to thank Ms. Katherine Glenn for assisting me with arduous task of forming a suitable and fundable proposal for the Paul Smith’s sustainability committee. This capstone would not be near the caliber it is if it were not for Ms. Janet Mihuc’s professional review. Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc373742435 \h iAcknowledgments PAGEREF _Toc373742436 \h iiList of Tables and Figures PAGEREF _Toc373742437 \h ivIntroduction PAGEREF _Toc373742438 \h 1Literature review PAGEREF _Toc373742439 \h 4Water Cost PAGEREF _Toc373742440 \h 4Water Availability PAGEREF _Toc373742441 \h 5Government Policy PAGEREF _Toc373742442 \h 6Products & Claims PAGEREF _Toc373742443 \h 6Environmental Impact PAGEREF _Toc373742444 \h 8Methods PAGEREF _Toc373742445 \h 10Determine Wastewater Production Change on Paul Smiths Campus with Dual-Flush Conversion PAGEREF _Toc373742446 \h 10Apply Wastewater Production Variances to United States PAGEREF _Toc373742447 \h 11Assess Possible Environmental Impact PAGEREF _Toc373742448 \h 13Results PAGEREF _Toc373742449 \h 14Literature Cited PAGEREF _Toc373742450 \h 24List of Tables and FiguresPageFigure 1: Savings in Urban Areas………………………………………………………………15Figure 2: Savings in Rural Areas……………………………………………………………….16Figure 3: Map of Savings in Urban Areas……………………………………………………...17Figure 4: Map of Savings in Rural Areas……………………………………………………….18Figure 5: Map of Water Shortage Risk………………………………………………………….19Figure 6: Paul Smith’s College Water Consumption Rates……………………………………..20IntroductionAs freshwater aquifers and lakes are being drained and rivers tapped finding adequate access to fresh water is becoming increasingly difficult to findCITATION Env06 \m USh92 \m Wat06 \l 1033 \m Hoe07 (Environmental protection agency, 2006; US house of representatives, 1992; Water efficiency & building stromwater committee, 2006; Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). The rapid depletion of freshwater resources for agricultural, industrial and commercial consumption needs to be addressed to avoid irreversible damage to freshwater ecosystems CITATION Nel01 \l 1033 \m Hoe07 (Nels, Revenga, & Echeverria, 2001; Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). The commercial and residential sector is responsible for nearly ten percent of all freshwater consumption in the United States CITATION Pet02 \l 1033 \m USD10 (Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002; U.S. Department of energy, 2010). Policy capable of limiting the volume of wastewater produced and effectively freshwater consumed is currently moving through the many stages of approval within the government and will consequently lead to an increase in monetary cost for freshwaterCITATION Pet02 \m Rub04 \m Esp02 \l 1033 (Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002; Rubin, The cost of water and wastewater service in the united states, 2004; Espineira & Nauges, 2002). Litigation including new water efficiency standards imposed in New York City and the nationwide 2009 Energy Policy Act both recommend a block tariff system for freshwater consumption which would effectively increase the cost of potable water CITATION Env08 \l 1033 \m Wat06 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2008; Water efficiency & building stromwater committee, 2006). The volume of freshwater consumed in both domestic and commercial settings can be reduced substantially through appropriate water consumption.Reducing the depletion of fresh water resources can be carried out through a number of methods including low-flow urinals, toilets, and gray water management systems CITATION The10 \l 1033 (The green spotlight, 2010). Installing products such as low-flow shower heads, aerators on faucets, and high efficiency/ dual-flush toilets can decrease the amount of water consumed CITATION USg09 \l 1033 (U.S. green building council, 2009). The average United States citizen consumes roughly 80-100 gallons of water every day between showers, toilets, ingestion, and faucets CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). An improvement to efficiency of water consumption through innovative water saving fixtures is a viable method to reduce overall consumption. Toilets in particular can be decidedly inefficient, some requiring nearly seven gallons of water to complete just one flush CITATION Huf06 \l 1033 (Huff, 2006). Toilets in residential settings account for nearly 40% of total potable water consumption; the remaining 60% is spread between other fixtures.CITATION EPA98 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 1998). Policy reformation within the United States has made the industry standard now less than 1.6gpf (gallons per flush) CITATION USh92 \l 1033 \m Hoe07(US house of representatives, 1992; Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). The introduction of dual-flush technology has made it possible to decrease the consumption of water a step further. First conceived in the early 1980’s by an Australian inventor Bruce Thompson, dual flush technology promised to reinvent wastewater removal and drastically minimize water consumption CITATION Ang10 \l 1033 (Hutchinson, 2010). Unfortunately with excessively underpriced water dual flush technology didn’t completely arrive in the marketplace until roughly 1994 with the introduction of the Smartflush system CITATION Ang10 \l 1033 (Hutchinson, 2010). Like most new technologies in its infancy dual flush technology was undoubtedly not cost effective and remained out of the majority of consumers’ reach. Currently many models are becoming increasingly affordable ranging anywhere from an economically priced American Standard Siphonic dual flush at $211.00 to the elegant KOHLER Numi Comfort dual flush priced at $4,483.50 CITATION Hom13 \l 1033 (Home Depot, 2013). In most cases the most economically viable option is to convert an existing single flush toilet into a dual flush using an available retrofit kit. The retrofit kits are more affordable to the average consumer ranging anywhere from the BlueSource HydroRight Dual Flush Converter for $19.98 to the complete Fluidmaster Duo Flush System for $29.98 CITATION Hom13 \l 1033 (Home Depot, 2013). With 1.1 or 1.6gpf options available the user can differentiate between methods of disposal effectively decreasing total consumption by roughly 30% CITATION And10 \l 1033 \m USg09 (Funk, mayer, & Luttgen, 2010; U.S. green building council, 2009). Monetary benefits of fitting dual-flush systems into commercial and residential settings has the potential to be substantial however the total monetary benefit varies significantly according to municipal water cost CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 \m Env08 \m Pet02 \m Wat06 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002; Environmental Protection Agency, 2008; Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002; Water efficiency & building stromwater committee, 2006). Observable nonmonetary benefits from installing dual-flush systems can range from the enrichment of environmental conservation efforts to alleviating public relationsCITATION The10 \m har13 \l 1033 (The green spotlight, 2010; Harvard, 2013). Areas with restricted access to fresh water and densely populated cities on average have water costs that exceed the national average with little deliberation one can infer that where there is a limited resource that is vital for survival there will be public unrest associated with the resources dispersal (Environmental protection agency, 2006). Determining where dual-flush toilets are economically beneficial will particularly benefit areas with higher than average municipal water costs CITATION And10 \l 1033 (Funk, mayer, & Luttgen, 2010). This study determined where, in the 50 United States, dual-flush toilet retrofits make sense from the triple bottom line of sustainability (Economic, Social, and Environmental). The triple bottom line of sustainability is best described by Andrew W. Savitz author of The Triple Bottom Line as capturing “the essence of sustainability by measuring the impact of an organization’s activities on the world … including both its profitability and shareholder values and its social, human and environmental capital” CITATION Sla11 \l 1033 (Slaper, 2011). Paul Smith’s College campus in Paul Smiths, New York served as a model for determining the impact of dual-flush toilets versus conventional 1.6gpf toilets. A cost-benefit ratio utilizing 145 toilets was created to illustrate the conversion from conventional single-flush to dual-flush toilets. The projection model illustrated pre and post installation wastewater consumption rates and determined the amount of wastewater produced post installment. Successful monetary implementation was measured by comparing 1000’s of gallons of wastewater produced / resident pre and post simulated installation. The data produced by this study was extrapolated further to determine true cost-benefit in accordance with the cost of water for the entire country based on geographical region. For purposes of this study the cost of water and wastewater service was divided state by state using rural and urban populations to determine the source of the water (well or municipal). Literature reviewWater CostThe monetary cost of water distribution and consumption within the United States varies dramatically both by geographic area and method of consumption CITATION Rub04 \m Env06 \l 1033 (Rubin, The cost of water and wastewater service in the united states, 2004; Environmental protection agency, 2006). The cost of water is predominantly quantified in dollars per 1,000 gallons consumed CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 \m Hoe07 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002; Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). This method of quantification has been ethically challenged as it leads to underpriced potable water and thus, overconsumption and rapidly diminishing resources CITATION Hoe07 \l 1033 (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). The current method used by the majority of utility providers for appraising water depends on the relative accessibility of the water source i.e. the more difficult to obtain, the higher the monetary cost CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002). Due to the exceedingly high rates of consumption one may infer that the monetary charge placed on water in the United States currently doesn’t realize the full cost of water consumption/ distribution. The average monetary cost to the consumer fails to include the environmental /economic externalities and the opportunity cost associated with the extraction, purification and distribution of the potable water CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002). Some environmental externalities associated with the creation of potable water are clear, land degradation such as the drilling of a well or the introduction of a sewage treatment plant/ leach field into what would otherwise be used as habitat for fauna. The lowering of the water table in aquifers is leading to a variety of economic externalities requiring that individuals drill wells deeper into the rapidly depleting aquifer. Opportunity costs arise when considering in what method/ rate the water will be consumed in the future. For example, as fresh water becomes increasingly rare one lost opportunity cost would include any possible monetary gains from said aquifer post cost inflation. A variety of methods to both promote water through policy as an economic good along with increasing price equity, efficiency, and sustainability have been examined CITATION Pet02 \l 1033 (Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002). Peter Rogers and his team at Harvard University discuss the need for “significant government intervention to ensure that equity and public goods issues are adequately covered” CITATION Pet02 \l 1033 (Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002). If the legislative sector of government becomes involved with the distribution of water, limiting the amount of water that utilities are able to distribute, the basic laws of economics suggest that water will become more expensive. The challenge legislatively is to place an adequate monetary value on potable water that reflects its value to the environment and keeps access available to the economically challenged citizens. Water Availability The World Bank recognizes that with climate change the possibility for a dramatic freshwater shortage becomes more probable and urges that governments take action to limit water consumption rates CITATION Wor09 \l 1033 (World Bank, 2009). Already sections of the United States are faced with increasing costs of potable water during times of drought CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 \m Pet02 \m The10 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002; Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002; The green spotlight, 2010). According to a study published by the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) parts of “Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas” sustaining current water consumption rates is at an “extreme risk” CITATION Spe10 \l 1033 (Spencer & Altman, 2010). The most dramatic risk for water sustainability comes from the Great Plains and Southwest United States where the weather is predominately dry and arid CITATION Spe10 \l 1033 (Spencer & Altman, 2010). The price of potable water in the United States is not a fixed rate and much like gasoline, the price fluctuates in accordance with both technological innovation and availability CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002). Availability reflects the ability to extract and utilize potable water whereas technological innovation could consist of low flow fixtures. According to professor Peter Rogers the conventional theory that increasing the price of water will reduce equity is false; instead higher water rates will allow utilities to provide potable water to an increased number of customers which in turn will improve overall equity CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 \m Pet02 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002; Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002). Applying this theory of price inflation allows for a situation where any increased revenue can be allocated into either repairing existing structure or creating new structure thus, improving overall equity CITATION Pet02 \l 1033 (Rogers, Silva, & Bjatia, 2002). Clearly price inflation does run the risk of alienating the current market however without significant improvements to water collection/ extraction the overall equity will drastically be reduced. While the availability of potable water continues to decrease as the population increases it is a respectable financial decision to invest in efficient fixtures and appliances. Government policies regarding the installation and regulation of water saving fixtures is being constantly attuned to product innovation and consumer demand. Government PolicyIn 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a nationwide survey of community water systems CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). There were four primary reasons for conducting this study: Regulatory development analyses, policy development analyses, regulatory implementation analyses, and compliance analyses CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). The EPA’s focus of this study was to collect a large bank of data that could be referenced for future policy implementation, and compliance. The study consisted of over 50,000 community water systems using a stratified random sample design CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). The results from this survey assisted in the ratification of National water efficiency standards and specifications which govern water using fixtures and appliances for both residential and commercial areas CITATION Env08 \l 1033 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). Standards set in place in 1992 by the Energy Standards Act created limitations regarding the volume of water used per flush. Effective January 1, 1994 any and all new toilets were limited to a maximum of 1.6 gallons per flush CITATION Env08 \l 1033 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). Discussion involving the reduction of this volume even further to 1.28gpf has been increasing and the ratification of legislation limiting the maximum consumption rate to 1.28gpf could easily transpire within the next decade CITATION Esp02 \l 1033 \m The10 \m Env08 (Espineira & Nauges, 2002; The green spotlight, 2010; Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). In preparation for this change many large scale manufacturers of water fixtures have already adopted a variety of low-flow and energy efficient products.Products & ClaimsThe looming possibility of a markup on potable water should persuade consumers to consume less and in turn increase demand for water saving fixtures/ appliances CITATION Huf06 \l 1033 (Huff, 2006). According Mr. L?cio Costa Proen?a and Enedir Ghisi dual-flush toilets offer the largest potable water savings throughout the entire array of comparative fixtures and retrofits CITATION Pro13 \l 1033 (Proenca & Ghisi, 2013). The study conducted by Proen?a and Ghisi (2013) used ten buildings to determine the most effective method for decreasing water consumption. After calculating potential water savings through rainwater harvesting, gray-water reuse, dual-flush toilets and water-saving taps it was concluded that the most effective method for decreasing water consumption was retrofitting each building with dual-flush toilets CITATION Pro13 \l 1033 (Proenca & Ghisi, 2013). Their study concluded that potential water savings produced by installing dual-flush toilets range from 21.6% to 57.4% total savings CITATION Pro13 \l 1033 (Proenca & Ghisi, 2013). An EPA partnership program WaterSense? determined the approximate water savings of replacing a standard “old” toilet with a dual-flush toilet to be roughly 13,000 gallons annually CITATION Wat13 \l 1033 (WaterSense, 2013). WaterSense? also determined that outfitting a home with low-flow faucets yields approximately 500 gallons of water savings annually and converting to low-flow showerheads can yield up to 2,900 gallons of water savings annually CITATION Wat13 \l 1033 (WaterSense, 2013). WaterSense? has made it clear that the most significant difference in water savings is obtained by replacing a standard toilet with either a low-flow toilet or a dual-flush toilet. The Sloan Valve Company produces a variety of products to limit water consumption for both commercial and domestic fixtures. Included in the array of water saving options is the Uppercut ?Manual Dual-flush Flushometer handle. Purchased for approximately $45.00US it will allow the user to choose between an economical 1.1 gallon flush designed to dispose of urine and the industry average 1.6 gallon flush for fecal matter CITATION Slo10 \l 1033 (Sloan, 2010). Lifting the handle upwards will initiate the 1.1 gallon flush whereas pushing the handle down will utilize the 1.6 gallon flush. The Uppercut? Manual Dual-flush handle is primarily designed for use in commercial and public settings. Literature promoting the Uppercut? system boasts a 30% decrease in total wastewater production post installation CITATION Slo10 \l 1033 (Sloan, 2010). Another water saving retrofit available for standard residential vertical-tank style toilets is the Fluidmaster duo-flush system. A study conducted by Michael Carson a mechanical engineer at Purdue University, measured water savings resulting from the conversion of 12 standard public toilets before and after the Uppercut? Dual-flush Flushometer. Mr. Carson was able to illustrate a savings of approximately 8032 gallons per month CITATION Slo07 \l 1033 (Sloan, 2007). The Fluidmaster duo-flush system can be purchased for approximately $28.00US and converts existing single flush residential toilets into dual-flush systems with 1.1gpf and 1.6gpf options (Fluidmaster, 2013). The Fluidmaster duo-flush system claims a possible savings of over 15,000 gallons of water per fixture annually post installation CITATION Flu13 \l 1033 (Fluidmaster, 2013). The Fluidmaster retrofit can retrofit any toilet with an industry standard 2” drain without removing the tank CITATION Flu13 \l 1033 (Fluidmaster, 2013). These systems can be purchased through a variety of retailers and wholesalers both through the internet and local plumbing distributors. Although these dual-flush retrofits are not the only retrofits available nor by online consumer review are they the easiest to install or maintain they are the most affordable products that can be purchased in the quantity required for this study. Environmental ImpactEnvironmental impact regarding the transport and treatment of wastewater varies proportionally to the method chosen. For example, in the majority of nations stricken with poverty, wastewater is predominantly disposed via the method that provides the lowest upfront monetary cost CITATION Nel01 \l 1033 (Nels, Revenga, & Echeverria, 2001). Purging wastewater into nearby water sources creates an extreme environmental and social disservice CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). By disposing of wastewater in this method, pathogens and toxic compounds increase in frequency and thus increase the severity and regularity of health complications CITATION Wor09 \l 1033 \m Bal02 (World Bank, 2009; Balkema & Preisig, 2002). Wealthier, more developed nations have access to the monetary capital, expertise and energy to dispose of their wastewater through a variety of treatment facilities CITATION Wor09 \l 1033 \m Env06 (World Bank, 2009; Environmental protection agency, 2006). These methods of wastewater disposal/ treatment can be extremely inefficient, consuming a large amount of energy to function CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). In the United States the most common method for the transport of wastewater is via centralized combined sewer system collection where untreated wastewater is transported to a centralized treatment facility CITATION Env04 \l 1033 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). According an EPA estimate “Over 75% of the nation’s population is served by centralized wastewater collection and treatment systems” CITATION Env04 \l 1033 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). Centralized collection and treatment systems are designed to consolidate a population’s wastewater and remove oxygen-demanding substances, pathogens, nutrients, inorganic and synthetic organic chemicals through a basic physical, biological and chemical process CITATION Env04 \l 1033 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2004). Decreasing the volume of wastewater produced in both developing and developed nations can be environmentally, economically, and socially beneficial. Energy associated with the extraction and transport of potable water also contributes to environmental degradation CITATION Hoe07 \l 1033 (Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). The continual anthropogenic demand on freshwater is drastically affecting its availability for future populations. According to a study conducted by the World Resources Institute (WRI) over 1.7 billion people live in highly stressed river basins and if current water consumption patterns hold constant roughly 48% of the world’s projected population will live in water-stressed river basins by 2025 CITATION Nel01 \l 1033 (Nels, Revenga, & Echeverria, 2001). Pressure on freshwater resources can be attributed to the drastic undervaluation of its worth in nature. The overconsumption of freshwater, destruction of wetlands, and construction of dams is leading to a rapid loss of aquatic biodiversity CITATION Nel01 \l 1033 \m Hoe07 (Nels, Revenga, & Echeverria, 2001; Hoekstra & Chapagain, 2007). Freshwater biodiversity accounts for nearly 6% of all described species CITATION Dud05 \l 1033 (Dudgeon & Arthington, 2005). However, freshwater makes up just 0.01% of the world’s water and only 0.8% of the Earth’s surface CITATION Dud05 \l 1033 (Dudgeon & Arthington, 2005).MethodsThere are a variety of approaches to execute an effective cost-benefit analysis. The cost-benefit analysis used in this study was modeled after the 2005 Water and Energy Savings from High Efficiency Fixtures and Appliances in Single Family Homes study conducted by the Environmental Protection AgencyCITATION Env05 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2005). The 2005 EPA cost-benefit analysis applied dual-flush retrofit technology on a small residential scale and included an in depth analysis of the economic benefits associated with the dual-flush retrofit. The Paul Smith’s College retrofits will double the number of dual-flush toilet retrofits as compared to the EPA’s study and will allow for wastewater production analysis. To complete this study there were three primary procedures; Determine wastewater production change on Paul Smith’s Campus with dual-flush conversion, apply wastewater production variances to United States, and to extrapolate the environmental impact from the calculated water savings through a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system. Determine Wastewater Production Change on Paul Smiths Campus with Dual-Flush ConversionTo produce a cost benefit model for analogous institutions with a similar number of populace I utilized Paul Smith’s College campus located in Upstate New York within the Adirondack Park. Paul Smith’s College offers a near perfect location to complete a comparison model because of the readily available wastewater production data and a relatively closed loop water production/ consumption process. Paul Smith’s currently provides potable water to the campus via well & well tower; the wastewater is processed on site through a combination of aerobic digestion and reed-bed filtration systems. The remaining solid waste product is removed by a third party and processed off-site. Baseline wastewater production was quantified via a Monitoring Report conducted August 2011 to July 2012 (gallons per month). This value was then compared to the projected volume produced post dual-flush installation over the same time duration. The data collected was organized into an excel file for comparison. Student population averages were used to determine frequency of flushes throughout each period. For purposes of this study the average student populations of Paul Smiths College are assumed to remain a constant 1000 students. The frequency and type of flush (Fecal/ Urine) for purposes of this study are 5.1 flushes/person/day with an average of 1.1 defecation/person/dayCITATION Env07 \m Hea91 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2007; Heaton, Radvan, & Cripps, 1991). Projected data were produced by approximating the water savings associated with the installation of 145 dual-flush toilet retrofits installed throughout the Paul Smiths College campus. There will be 104 domestic style dual-flush conversions for use in the residence halls along with 41 commercial grade conversion kits for the academic buildings. The domestic and commercial grade dual-flush conversion kits will allow for either a 1.1gpf or a 1.6gpf. The domestic dual-flush conversion kit is produced and marketed by Fluidmaster? and claims to save up to 15,000 gallons of water per fixture annually. The commercial grade dual-flush systems are marketed by SLOAN? and will have the 1.1gpf & 1.6gpf options as well and are projected to save up to 30% on water consumption annually. Gathering adequate quantitative data on preexisting fixtures and wastewater production was essential to determine a positive or negative relationship between dual-flush toilets and water savings.Apply Wastewater Production Variances to United StatesAfter the Paul Smith’s College wastewater production data was completed the relative impact for the remainder of the United States was calculated. An Impact Atlas was designed and organized by the states average water and wastewater cost. The Impact Atlas was created using ArcGIS, ArcMap 10.1, ArcCatalog 10.1 and illustrates economic viability on an interactive map of the United States divided by state. The impact atlas created in ArcGIS includes numerous state and national government incentive programs that could potentially offset the initial cost of implementing a dual-flush product. The impact atlas can be updated to adjust attributes for variable water costs, natural disasters, and new/ expiring incentive programs.The National Rural Water Association prepared a comparative study which determined the average cost of water and wastewater through all 50 states; the data from this study was used to determine the economic viability for dual-flush conversionCITATION Rub04 \t \l 1033 (Rubin, 2004). Determining the monetary benefit for populations residing in rural areas where the primary source for water is a private well required household occupancy, well size, cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) and overall rural population estimates on a state by state basis CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). The type of well pump used to quantify energy consumption in this study is the Dayton Deep Well as it is the industry standard for residential households CITATION Env06 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2006). Determining the monetary benefit for populations residing in urban areas where the primary source for water is municipal required data regarding the average cost of municipal water for each state, and the urban population density.Gallons per flush data collected were compared by the average number of flushes per resident per day. After multiplying this value by the number of households per state the remaining value represented the projected volume of wastewater produced per state through conventional 1.6gpf toilets. All data regarding the number of households per state and the population of every state was retrieved using a 2005 American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau.Calculating the monetary cost of potable water for region was done after accounting for two extraction methods, well and municipal. For purposes of this study it was assumed that populations in rural areas predominantly use well systems and urban populations are tied to a municipal source. The monetary gains were calculated by determining the price difference between a standard single flush and a dual flush conversion. Data illustrating population densities between urban and rural areas came from a census taken in 2010 conducted by the United State Census Bureau. To calculate approximate monetary value of water between states secondary data retrieved from the National Rural Water Association was tabulated and averaged in an excel file. The method used to calculate the economic costs associated with providing potable water through well water incorporated the kilowatt-hour (kWh) cost for the area (average), and the size of the well pump. For purposes of this study the well pump for homes whose primary source for water is provided via well was represented by the Dayton Deep Well (230V, 3/4hp 10GPM). The cost per kWh was averaged on a state by state basis using data from the United States Department of Energy. The approximate savings in gallons was then used to determine the possible monetary savings for homes using well water. Assess Possible Environmental ImpactThe relative environmental impact was determined primarily through secondary research. The environmental impact of wastewater produced via anthropogenic sources varies substantially dependent on existing wastewater treatment facilities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency the most common method for collecting municipal wastewater is a centralized and combined sewer systemCITATION EPA04 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2004). Quantifying the environmental impact of a centralized combined sewer system into a comparable value (Oxygen-Demanding Substances, Pathogens, Nutrients, Inorganic and Synthetic Organic Chemicals/ 1,000 gallons produced) would allow this study to calculate the approximate impacts of decreasing input. This comparable value would be taken directly from secondary research much like a study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency suggesting that over dilution of wastewater increases the amount of energy needed to process the wastewater CITATION Env10 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2010). The total number of gallons saved would be used to determine a savings ratio of environmental impact. Research focused on the complications that form from over-diluted wastewater and the complications that arise throughout the treatment process. ResultsAnnual savings for retrofitting standard 1.6gpf (gallons per flush) toilets to dual flush vary from $53.95 in urban Hawaii to as little as $0.59 in rural Illinois (Figure 1, Figure 2). When comparing initial costs of the retrofit ranging from a modest $25.00 for a single toilet in an average residential household to $300.00 for a commercial grade dual flush system deciding whether or not to perform the retrofit depends primarily on location. Completing a dual flush retrofit in a standard residential home with a standard 1.6gpf toilet in an urban area can be a monetarily sound investment with paybacks as short as one year (Figure 1). If a commercial grade Sloan ECOS dual flush conversion was chosen for the retrofit the payback period in any urban area would be significantly longer, as the savings needed to cover the upfront costs of purchasing and installing the dual flush system range anywhere from 12.17 years in Nebraska to 5.56 years in Hawaii (Figure 1, Figure 2). While rural areas did not exhibit savings nearly as significant as urban areas, the observed savings can still provide an incentive to opt for the dual-flush option over the standard 1.6gpf toilet (Figure 2). When an economically beneficial investment is paired with a social and environmental gain there is a higher probability of its acceptance. -412750000-142240387350Figure 1. Annual savings for dual flush conversion in urban areas.Figure 1. Annual savings for dual flush conversion in urban areas. -296545000-296545111125Figure 2. Annual savings for dual flush conversion in rural areas.0Figure 2. Annual savings for dual flush conversion in rural areas.-6057902540000Figure 3. Projected water consumption rates (gallons) for 145 toilets on Paul Smiths College campus-387355511800Figure 4. Projected annual savings after converting standard 1.6 gallon per flush toilets into dual flush toilets in rural areas020000Figure 4. Projected annual savings after converting standard 1.6 gallon per flush toilets into dual flush toilets in rural areas1021715-139065000-270510-296545Figure 5. Projected annual savings after converting standard 1.6 gallon per flush toilets into dual flush toilets in urban areas00Figure 5. Projected annual savings after converting standard 1.6 gallon per flush toilets into dual flush toilets in urban areas-1803405504815Figure 6. Water shortage risk percentage by state00Figure 6. Water shortage risk percentage by stateConverting 145 standard 1.6gpf toilets on Paul Smiths College campus to dual flush can conserve 105850 gallons of water annually, conservatively (Figure 6). Basing monetary gains principally on the cost of electricity used to pump the water operating the Franklin Electric Submersible Motor 7.5HP, 200V, Phase 3, model # 2366519020 with an average cost of electricity of 15.29 cents/ kWh projected monetary savings are $38.14 annually. With a projected project cost of $11,582.00 the payback period would be 303.67 years. This extraordinary long payback period is due to the exceptionally low cost of providing water for the college. The costs of processing the wastewater are insignificant due to the college’s reed-bed wastewater treatment facility.The risk of water shortage by state is listed to illustrate possible future monetary changes for the cost of providing water and wastewater services (Figure 5). The risk of water shortage is proportional to the availability and accessibility of potable water and thus, can dictate the monetary value of water. The approximate environmental impact of decreasing the volume of wastewater produced is negligible when the size of the wastewater treatment plants is brought into the equation. The environmental impact associated with the over dilution of wastewater comes when there is no primary treatment. A lack of proper storm water management system paired with a diluted wastewater treatment facility often leads to flooding and leakage. Discussion Overall this study has concluded that dual flush retrofits are undoubtedly a good investment for the majority of homeowners throughout the United States. Most urban areas illustrate payback periods often lasting less than one year making a dual-flush retrofit a logical choice for any urban homeowner. While monetary gains are notably less in rural areas, decreasing the volume of wastewater produced/ potable water consumed increases the frequency of environmental benefits. There is noticeable variation in both monetary and environmental impacts associated with decreasing water consumption/ wastewater production throughout the United States. The most dramatic monetary gains were in the more arid south and mid-western states. Environmental benefits associated with decreasing the volume of wastewater for rural systems can be extensive or minimal depending widely on the method of extraction (well/ municipal) and disposal. For example decreasing the volume of wastewater produced for onsite septic systems can increase the longevity of the septic system, and by decreasing the volume of water drawn from the well more time is given for the water table to recharge CITATION Off02 \l 1033 (Office of water, 2002). The monetary gains illustrated in this study in rural areas are relatively low due to the method of calculation used in this study. The only widely quantifiable monetary datum used in this study was the cost of the electricity to operate the well. Variables not taken into account that can affect power demand include the depth of the individual homeowners well, the size of the preexisting toilets (gallons per flush), cost of installation, and size of septic system / municipal septic system. Increasing the distance that the water travels inevitably will increase the power demand and thus, the power factor of the well pump. While the depth of the well will not drastically affect the cost of operating the pump there will still be a variance that remains unaccounted. If the preexisting toilet(s) in the home are rated above 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) the savings should increase as predicted. However, many older homes built before the Energy Policy Act of 1994 contain toilets that use upwards of 5gpf thus, leading to a more dramatic increase in monetary savings when converting to a dual flush system CITATION Env12 \l 1033 (Environmental protection agency, 2012). The cost of installation was not included in the calculation of monetary savings because the cost can vary substantially. The products compared in this study can be installed by the average homeowner with nothing more than a monkey wrench and capable hands CITATION Mjs091 \l 1033 \m Flu13 (Mjsi, 2009; Fluidmaster, 2013). The size of the septic system can affect the monetary gains/ losses of the installation due to the adverse effects of an under sized system being inundated with water or an oversized system becoming underutilized. An oversized onsite septic system being underutilized won’t negatively affect the costs associated with a dual flush alternative unfortunately just the initial cost of the system will become unjustified. The number of variables associated with quantifying monetary and environmental gains of a dual flush conversion should be done on an individual scale to achieve the best data. Of course the most difficult to quantify and unpredictable data occur when the anthropogenic variable is added to the equation. Quantifying the exact number of times families or individuals urinate or defecate in a day over an extended period of time can lead to extreme variances that change the outcome of the data dramatically. Patterns that appeared in the data demonstrate a relationship between dry, arid regions and higher monetary gains (Figure 5). The percentage of risk linked to water shortages illustrated in Figure 5 show a correlation with primarily southern and mid-western states. Coincidentally these states also illustrate a higher than average cost for potable water. Surprisingly however, the link between the risk of water shortage and urban areas in regards to water cost do not correspond in the urban areas of the north eastern states. The costs of supplying and disposing of water in these densely populated urban areas cannot be distributed evenly throughout the population thus augmenting the cost for the general public. Specifically I determined that dual flush toilets are a monetarily viable option for urban homeowners however are not as beneficial for rural homeowners. This study also concluded that as predicted the most viable areas for a dual flush conversion are in water poor regions of the United States, primarily in the southern and mid-western states. The limitations associated with study are broad due to the extended number of variables that could not be accounted for due to a lack of time and resources. Implications for this study may include an increased presence of marketing for dual flush toilets in dry and arid regions of the United States, and an increase of awareness of dual flush toilets in urban areas. Future studies may include: data on a county based scale, a user friendly cost-savings calculator to distribute to dual-flush retailers, distributed surveys to determine awareness of the product and, surveys to determine approximate number of standard and older toilets are more predominate. Literature CitedBalkema, A. J., & Preisig, H. A. (2002). Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewter tretment systems. UrbanWater, 153-161.Dudgeon, D., & Arthington, A. H. (2005). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Cambridge Philosophical Society, 163-182.Environmental protection agency. (1998). Water efficiency. Environmental technology initative, 1-5.Environmental Protection Agency. (2004, September). Primer for municipal wastewater treatment systems. EPA(832-R-04-001). Washington DC: US EPA.Environmental protection agency. (2005). Water and energy savings in single family homes.Environmental protection agency. (2006). 2006 community water system survey. Washington DC: EPA.Environmental protection agency. (2007). Watersense tank-type high-efficiency toilet specification supporting statement. Washington DC: environmental protection agency.Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). National efficiency standards and specifications for residential and commercial water-using fixtures and appliances. Washington DC: EPA.Environmental protection agency. (2010). CADDIS volume 2: Sources, stressors & responses. Retrieved from EPA: protection agency. (2012). WaterSense. Retrieved 11 07, 2013, from United states environmental protection agency: , R. M., & Nauges, C. (2002). Is all domestic water consumption sensitive to price control? Applied economics, 1697.Fluidmaster. (2013, 02 24). Fluidmaster water conservation zone. Retrieved 02 24, 2013, from fluidmaster: water-consercation/duo-flush-systemFunk, A., mayer, p., & Luttgen, M. (2010). Dual Flush Savings. Water efficiency, 44-47.Harvard. (2013, 02 24). green.harvard.edu. Retrieved 02 24, 2013, from Sustainability at Harvard: green.harvard.edu/theresource/commercial-interiors/design-element/water-efficiencyHeaton, K. W., Radvan, J., & Cripps, H. (1991). Defecation frequency and timing, and stool form in the general population: a prospective study. University department of epidemiology and public health medicine. Bristol: University department of medicine.Hoekstra, A., & Chapagain, A. (2007). Water footprints of nations: Water use by people as a function of their consumption pattern. Water resour manage, 35-48.Home Depot. (2013, 10 2). The home depot. Retrieved from : , W. (2006). Dual flush: A vote for water conservation. Plumbing technology of the future, 28-30.Hutchinson, A. (2010, September 17). 60 Years of caroma. Retrieved from : . (2009). Water-saving toilet retrofits. Mjsi inc.Nels, J., Revenga, c., & Echeverria, J. (2001, 5 11). Managing water for people and nature. Science, 1071-1072.Office of water. (2002). Onsite wastewater treatment systems manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington DC: Office of research and development.Proenca, L., & Ghisi, E. (2013). Assessment of potable water savings in office buildings considering embodied energy. Water resour manage.Rogers, P., Silva, R., & Bjatia, R. (2002). Water is an economic good: How to use prices to promote equity, efficiency, and sustainability. Water policy, 1-17.Rubin, S. J. (2004). The cost of water and wastewater service in the united states. selinsgrove: national rural water association.Rubin, S. J. (2004). The cost of water and wastewater service in the united states.Slaper, T. F. (2011). The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work? Indiana business review, 86(1).Sloan. (2007, June). Sloan projects. Retrieved 10 13, 2013, from Sloan: . (2010). Sloan the water efficiency company. Retrieved 02 23, 2013, from : , T., & Altman, P. (2010). Climate change, water, and risk: Current water demands are not sustainable. Washington DC: Natural Resource Defence Council.The green spotlight. (2010). Switch to high-efficiency plumbing fixtures to save water, energy and money. The green spotlight.U.S. Department of energy. (2010, 04). Buildings energy data book. Retrieved 03 02, 2013, from buildingsdatabook.eren.: . green building council. (2009). Water use reduction additional guidance. United states green building council.US house of representatives. (1992). Energy policy act of 1992. Energy policy act, (pp. 58-65). Washington DC.Water efficiency & building stromwater committee. (2006). Enhance water efficiency standards. Urban green.WaterSense. (2013, Febuary). WaterSense. Retrieved 10 13, 2013, from Watersense an epa partnership program: Bank. (2009). Sustaining water for all in a changing climate. World Bank. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download