rio me sa cen ter on site treatm ent of gr ay water ...€¦ · sa cen reatm from velopm ... the...

Gr

rayWaALo

OnterResowImp

Susta

RioMen‐SiteTsultingpactDe

PrepareForDCV

ainableUrb

Mr.JMr.DasMr.SteMr.Th

esaCenTreatmgfromvelopm

edSpring2Dr.Burian’VEEN6460banWater

By:JoshAdamschHoudeserlingWalkhomasWal

ntermentofCampimentA

2010’s

Engineerin

sshelkerlsh

fingFacApproa

ng

cilities:ach

:

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1

Background...................................................................................................................................................2

Site...............................................................................................................................................................2

WaterUseandGrayWaterContributionApproximations.................................................3

LowImpactDevelopments(LIDs).................................................................................................4

Bioretention........................................................................................................................................5

“LivingMachines”forWastewaterTreatment....................................................................5

LabReport.....................................................................................................................................................6

MicrocosmDesign,Construction,andEstablishment...........................................................6

SyntheticGrayWaterTestingProtocol.......................................................................................9

Results.....................................................................................................................................................10

DiscussionofResults........................................................................................................................12

ConclusionofResults........................................................................................................................12

SystemDesigns.........................................................................................................................................13

WedgeSystem......................................................................................................................................14

Description.......................................................................................................................................14

SystemDetails.................................................................................................................................14

Advantages.......................................................................................................................................15

Disadvantages.................................................................................................................................16

CircleSystem........................................................................................................................................16

Description.......................................................................................................................................16

SystemDetails.................................................................................................................................16

Advantages.......................................................................................................................................17

Disadvantages.................................................................................................................................17

RectangularSystem...........................................................................................................................17

Description.......................................................................................................................................17

SystemDetails.................................................................................................................................18

Advantages.......................................................................................................................................18

Disadvantages.................................................................................................................................19

SysteminSeries..................................................................................................................................19

Description.......................................................................................................................................19

SystemDetails.................................................................................................................................20

Advantages.......................................................................................................................................21

Disadvantages.................................................................................................................................21

CostEstimations......................................................................................................................................22

AggregateComponent......................................................................................................................22

VegetationandTopsoilComponent...........................................................................................22

PipeComponent..................................................................................................................................22

MiscellaneousComponents...........................................................................................................23

DeliveryComponent.........................................................................................................................24

CaseStudy:DesignBuildBLUFFGrayWaterManagementProject....................................25

SummaryofSite‐SpecificRulesandRegulations.................................................................25

BackgroundDescriptionoftheSystem....................................................................................26

DescriptionofObjectivesandProposedSite.........................................................................26

RecommendationsforInstallingGrayWaterSystems......................................................26

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................27

AppendixA:References.......................................................................................................................29

AppendixB:EquationsandDefinitions.........................................................................................31

AppendixC:Costs....................................................................................................................................33

AppendixD:DesignSchematics........................................................................................................36

RioMesaCenter:GrayWaterTreatment 1

Introduction Gray water is wastewater that results from residents and institutions, is generated

from activities such as bathing and laundry washing, and is characterized by high volumes with low concentrations of nutrients and pollution (Neal, 1996; Errikkson et al., 2002; Ottoson & Stenstrom, 2003; Palmquist & Hanaeus, 2005; Ludwing, 2009). The production of gray water accounts for over half of the total load delivered to municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the United States (Rose et al., 1990; Karpiscale et al., 1992; Sherman, 1999). At the same time, exterior water use for irrigation of ornamental landscaping accounts for 40% – 70% of municipal water consumption (Erikkson et al., 2002; LA County, 1992). Although currently viewed as a waste product to be disposed of, the developing paradigm of water resources management in the arid west views gray water as a valuable resource, which can simultaneously decrease loads to aging and undersized municipal sewer treatment plants and create an on-site water source for exterior landscaping. While this approach seems beneficial, state regulatory agencies express strong concerns regarding this recent trend in gray water management, citing the increased potential for human exposure to harmful bacteria and degradation of environmental quality.

Although some parts of the United States, especially California and Arizona, allow and encourage gray water reuse on-site, acceptance of this technology is slow to spread to Utah. Many gray water treatment garden instruction manuals and guides are available, but there has been little formal investigation into treatment processes or quantifying ecological treatment potential. Several studies have attempted to quantify gray water characteristics and a review of this literature suggests that nutrient levels and pathogen-spreading potential varies greatly by the source of the gray water (Al-Hamaiedeh & Bino, 2010; Rose et al., 1999; Enferadi et al., 1980; Brandes 1978; Boyel ; Sherman 1991). For example, LA County (1992) reports that households with children produce gray water with fecal coliform counts on an order of magnitude 3 to 5 times higher than households without children. Based on the LA County study and other studies from around the world, the assertion that non-conventional means of dealing with gray water introduces a significant environmental and health risk is valid. However, this research also shows that basic treatment concepts incorporated into decentralized, on-site applications can successfully mitigate these risks to acceptable levels. Further, according to Ludwig (2010), there are no documented cases where reusing gray water for residential landscaping irrigation led to a human illness within the United States.

While the potential for engineered wetlands to effectively eliminate pathogens, such as fecal coliform and E. coli, from wastewater has been well documented, little work has evaluated treatment capacity of ecological on-site gray water treatment approaches. LA County (1992) conducted a study comparing gardens watered with tap water with those watered sub-grade via gray water and found that, while the gray water had higher counts of fecal coliforms, bacterial levels within both gardens were the same. This result was attributed to background levels of pet waste, as well as natural sources of bacteria, and the level of human exposure to these bacteria was not considered to be a


significant health risk. Ludwig (2010) reports that, while indicator bacteria may multiply in gray water systems, testing of pathogens in a number of facilities consistently indicates that watering residential landscaping with gray water does not increase pathogen counts. While more comprehensive and quantitative study is needed, this review of background research shows that using gray water to irrigate landscaping on the residential scale does not increase the resident’s exposure to harmful pathogens.

Also of concern to regulatory agencies, at all levels, is the environmental quality. The primary ingredients in most soaps are salts, nitrogen, and surfactants. The concern is that applying high levels of soapy water to native soils could potentially increase salinity of soils beyond healthy, or natural, levels. Nitrogen contamination of surface and groundwater are also perceived as a risk associated with gray water irrigation. Research has suggested that irrigating with gray water may increase salinity of in-situ, native soils in arid environments when applied to the soil surface (Gross et al. 2005). In addition, Travis et al. (2008) found evidence that grease and oils may accumulate within the environment, thereby creating hydrophobic, or water repelling, soils.

Through research, Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino (2010) have found that treating gray

water in a lined gravel filter will significantly reduce concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), SAR (a measurement of salinity), and total nitrogen. Pinto et al (2009), Travis et al. (2010), and Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino (2010) all show that untreated gray water will often meet or exceed local irrigation water quality standards, but will increase soil salinity levels over time. However, by applying basic pre-treatment with the appropriate application rates and methods, gray water poses itself as a sustainable and safe substitute for potable water irrigation of landscape in arid climates.

Background

Site The proposed project site is located in Grand County, Utah and the Rio Mesa

Center (RMC) itself sits adjacent to the Dolores River, 4.5 miles east of its confluence with the Colorado River. As the crow flies, the ranch is roughly 24 miles northeast of Moab, Utah. The RMC is affiliated with the University of Utah and emphasizes research, education, and outreach specific to both the local and regional scales. Currently, outdated and failing infrastructure services the property, requiring significant upgrades on several, if not all, levels. Due to the interests of the university, a complete overhaul has been proposed, with input being garnered from students and faculty alike. As an end product, the university envisions a state-of-the-art ‘satellite campus’ that highlights the symbiotic relationships of humans with their environment and history. This will be achieved not only through education and outreach but also through the creation of an interactive infrastructure to facilitate and integrate the user population with the surroundings.

Site-specific criteria includes: elevation (approximately 4100 feet), size (approximately 380 acres), proposed developments (camping, bathhouse, pavilion), and


service population (100 persons maximum). Currently, the main aim is to develop a camping area, with bath houses, to service a daily average of 40 persons. The camping will be year-round and it is proposed to house campers in platform, ‘walled’ tents. For the bath houses to successfully service the associated demands, the RMC envisions 3 showers, 2 sinks, and 2 toilets. Specifics regarding the details of these services, such as the source(s) of water and types of models (i.e. pit versus composting toilets), remain undecided and open to suggestion. Eventually, the RMC will expand its services to include a pavilion and extra facilities, producing an additional 60 person capacity.

A site visit was carried out by members of the team on Tuesday 23, March, 2010 to Wednesday 24, March, 2010. A basic review of the proposed camping area provided the team with an enhanced understanding of the physical characteristics of the site. Currently, the site is littered with the remnants of an abandoned homestead, which must be removed prior to construction. Since many of the buildings slated for demolition are made with wood, the opportunity to reuse these materials is high and should be considered in the design and construction of the facilities, such as the bath houses. Not only would this decrease the cost of required materials but it would also maintain the connection between past and present, a high priority of the RMC.

For geotechnical information on the site, the Geotechnical Report for Entrada Ranch: November 2009 was referenced (RB&G engineering 2009). This report determined: the frost line is at a depth of 2.5 feet; native surface soils (0 to 5 foot depth) near the area of the proposed camping sites are composed of silty sand, silty gravel with sand, silty sand with gravel, gravel with silt and sand, cobbles, & boulders, and silty sand with gravel and possible cobbles & boulders; and, vegetative cover consists of sage brush and native grasses with some cottonwood trees.

Water Use and Gray Water Contribution Approximations In order to determine the approximate supply volumes necessary to make any calculations regarding personal hygiene behaviors and the efficiencies for each system, the following assumptions were made:

A) Average Time in the Shower: 8.3 minutes per shower

There were several studies done to find this:

i) 20 min. Moen Plumbing Faucet Company ii) 8 min. NCBuy.com Online Shopping Website iii) 7.5 min. American Standard Plumbing Faucet Company iv) 10.3 min. Waterwise Research NFP Organization (UK) v) 8.3 min. Online Survey Surveyed 8 People (Facebook)

It was decided to utilize the median of these four sources (with the exception of the Moen outlier), which happened to be equivalent to the Facebook survey of 8 people. This estimation also properly approximates the mean of the data without the Moen figure (8.5 minutes).


B) Shower Head Volume: 1.7 gallons per minute

First, it was assumed that the RMC will be installing some kind of low flow showerheads in the bath houses. These low flow showerheads can range from 2 to 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm). After reviewing the majority of available heads, it was determined that most of the flow rates ranged from 1.5 to 1.7 gpm. Showerheads that offered flows outside of this range were typically higher in price. For this project, it was determined to employ a showerhead with a flow of 1.7 gpm. However, if this is not conducive to the wishes of the client, another option would be to place shower timers within the facility, which would eliminate the variability of the showers and prevent unnecessary water usage.

C) Peak Frequency of Use: 63 showers per week

This is based off of data provided by Ms. Sylvia Torti for the current Rio Mesa design. The facilities will serve campers 3.5 days a week and the proposed facility possesses a 40 person maximum capacity. According to the online survey that was carried out also revealed that, given the opportunity, most people would shower less often than the average, once a day.

Therefore, it is assumed that the subjects using the Rio Mesa facilities will be more inclined to understanding the impact of using the shower once a day and may be more likely to shower less often as well. This human characteristic is an important factor and has been termed as environmental awareness, which could not be determined through the study. However, the survey’s results do show that several people did not expect to shower while camping. Considering all of these factors, it was decided to develop a coefficient that could properly describe the shower use. This function, labeled as Equation 1, is contained within Appendix B.

It was assumed that peak usage of the bath house facilities will most likely occur in the early morning or the late afternoon. Since there are only three showers, peak flow can be calculated by multiplying the number of facilities (3) by the reference showerhead flow rate (1.7 gpm). The result of this calculation is 5.1 gpm. For project-specific load totals, Table 1 has been synthesized and is provided below.

Table 1: Gray water load totals

Totals Peak Flow 5.1 gpm Total Volume (Daily) 254 gallons Total Volume (Weekly) 889 gallons

Low Impact Developments (LIDs) Due to the lack of reliable energy infrastructure at the site, the project was forced

to consider management practices with either no or low energy requirements. Thus, the use of low impact developments (LIDs) was chosen as the route of design. LIDs are


traditionally employed to manage and treat, to a certain extent, stormwater runoff. Additionally, while the site receives negligible yearly precipitation and the management of stormwater becomes unnecessary, the use of LIDs remains applicable to meet all of the demands and end-uses of the system. This route of design also allows for incorporation of greater sustainability, with regard to the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line of sustainability represents how the three dimensions of economy, social, and environment are interconnected and how understanding this is imperative when approaching the design of such systems.

The first step of LID is a non-structural approach, in that conservation and better site design are emphasized. For instance, orientation of the buildings should be considered in order to maximize natural lighting, passive solar heating, shading, et cetera. In doing so, traditional costs associated with such components can be either decreased or eliminated altogether. Socially, investigation of how to maintain natural site conditions, without significant alteration of the land, allows for the potential to integrate and enhance the aesthetic nature of both the structure, or system, and the surrounding environment. Other considerations include land use, hydrology, soil type, climate, and precipitation patterns.

The second step of LID involves extrapolating such conditions and applying them to the design of an applicable green infrastructure. Below is a list of the green infrastructure practices considered, along with a discussion as to their functionality specific to the site.

Bioretention Also known as rain gardens, bioretention units allow for stormwater runoff to be

collected, stored, treated, and infiltrated into the surrounding soil. Stormwater is directed from impervious surfaces into gardens designed with a storage component, which serves to maximize runoff quantity reduction. The rhizospheres of the plants in these facilities are known to promote water quality treatment and are suspected to provide a significant reduction in captured volume through transpiration (Davis et al., 2009).

However, for the means of this project, bioretention can be easily modified to

receive and manage gray water. Literature that describes the performance of these facilities should be relevant to our gray water application and, therefore, be supportive of the designs herein.

“Living Machines” for Wastewater Treatment “Living Machine” treatment facilities are designed to maximize ecological

processes and energy from living systems to treat sewage, while incorporating the efficiency of modern engineering. This is achieved by passing wastewater through a series of micro-ecosystems, composed of vascular plants, micro-crustacea, snails, and fish housed in an extended aeration train. “Living Machines” treat wastewater by converting the organic matter into biomass and energy, which is transferred up through different trophic levels of an ecosystem. The majority of the energy, however, is lost to metabolism and other life-sustaining functions of the lower trophic levels. In turn, the resulting biomass can be treated similar to an activated-sludge treatment train, with the

RioM

energanim

conceconcethereb

Lab

sectioof the

Micr

faciliconstreplicledifoplantof thenativof memicro

MesaCenter

gy being lostals in the sy

Although

entrations ofept of the “Lby providing

Report To suppor

on, laboratore LID implem

rocosm DesIn Februa

ities to treat ptructed to thecated three tiolious (mahoed (each) wiese planting e, riparian spedia added toocosm.

r:GrayWate

t from the system (Todd

this specificf nutrients, cLiving Machg an efficien

rt the literatury studies wemented with

sign, Constrary, six micropollutant loae design speimes each: thogany) and oith one Calixselections wpecies’. Tabo each box, t

erTreatmen

ystem througet al., 2003)

c project’s gcarbon, or waine” can be i

nt and ecolog

ure review aere conductehin the projec

ruction, andocosm modeading associacifications chree boxes w

one Bouteloux sp. (willow

was to test thble 2 describthe planting

nt

gh metabolism.

ray water apater needed tincorporated

gically sound

and conceptued to demonsct to treat gr

d Establishmels were conated with gra

contained in were plantedua gracilis (gw) and one Rhe treatment pbes the poros

techniques u

m and respir

pplication wito sustain a fd into that ofd system.

ual work comstrate the poray water inf

ment structed to teay water. AFigure 1. T

d (each) withgrama grass)

Ribes aureumpotential of

sity of each mused, and th

ration of the

ill not supplyfull-scale syf a bioretenti

mpiled in theollution remofluent.

est the potenAll six microcTwo groups oh one Cercoc), and three b

m (currant). both native,media used,

he fate, or res

e plants and

y sufficient ystem, the ion facility,

e previous oval potentia

ntial of LID cosms were of plants wercarpus boxes were The purpose upland and the volume

sult, of the

6

al

re

e

RioM

Table

Box

Box

Box

Box

Box

Box

*

Pmethmaintfilledprunepossithe ro

MesaCenter

e 2: Media P

Sand Weight

1 70.7

2 69.9

3 70

4 255.5

5 255.5

6 255.8

*tested as me

Plants were tods. The firtaining as m

d, as much ase the roots toible (Figure 3oots.

Fi

r:GrayWate

Fig

Properties, p

Sand Porosity

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

edia only con

transplanted,rst method co

much biomasss possible, aro the width o3). Topsoil

igure 2: Roo

erTreatmen

gure 1: Desig

planting tech

Utelite Weight

UtPo

958.8

659.1

960.1

1884.2

1884.6

1884.3

ntrol

, while in wionsisted of ws and structuround the roof the boxes was then pa

ot washing m

nt

gn paramete

hniques, and f

telite orosity

Vegn Ty

0.45 Wet

0.45 Wet

0.45 Wet

0.45 Upla

0.45 Upla

0.45 Upla

inter dormanwashing all sure as possibot system. Tand preservecked around

method of tra

ers for micro

fate of each

getatioype

PlanTec

tlands RooWa

tlands RooWa

tlands Roo

ands Roo

ands Roo

ands RooWa

ncy, into the soils off of th

ble (Figure 2The second me as much so

d the existing

ansplant esta

ocosms.

h microcosm.

nting chnique F

ot shing Tot shing T

ot Pruning D

ot Pruning D

ot Pruning Dot shing D

microcosmshe root struc). Topsoil wmethod empoil-root contg potting soi

ablishment

.

Fate

Tested

Tested

Died*

Died

Died

Died

s by two cture and was then ployed was totact as il attached to

7

o

o

RioM

contrsufficwas afrom naturallowday, t(L) odays.

growafter microwetlavermwaterto re-and, ato mothe ad

One wwatertestinmicro

MesaCenter

Once tranrolled climatcient to breakassumed thata Canon Dig

ral sunlight. wed to drain tthe bottom df water ever

Over the fwing, with the

this time, anocosms planands microco

miculite blendring event, c-plant these bas a result, nolesting the rdded stress o

For a shorweek beforer stress. Theng. At the timocosms were

r:GrayWate

Figure

nsplanted, alle, between 6k dormancy t sufficient lgital Rebel cFollowing p

through the drain holes wry 2-3 days, w

first three we currants brn intense aphted via the rosm) all failed and all soilcreating a larboxes; howe

no plants survroots while tof the aphid

rt period, thr planting, ho

e remaining tme of testinge tested.

erTreatmen

e 3: Root pru

l microcosm60 and 70 deand promptight was procamera, lightplanting, thebottom drain

were pluggedwhile the up

eeks of estabreaking out ihid infestatiooot pruning ed. The medls washed awrge void spacever, the aphvived the trathe plants weinfestation.

ree of these mowever, theytwo wetlandg, two health

nt

uning method

ms were kept egrees Fahret leaf-out of tovided. Howt intensities microcosmsn hole, dailyd. Wetland ppland plants w

blishment, an full flower

on caused sevmethod (two

dia the plantway from thece around th

hid infestatioansplant to there active (o

microcosms y were negleds microcosmhy wetlands

d of transpla

under two, 5nheit. The lthe willows

wever, basedwere approxs were thoro

y, for three dplants were wwere watere

all plants appr for two wevere casualto upland mics were growe roots after

he root systemon also occurhe microcos

opposed to in

recovered fected for 6 dams did recovmicrocosms

ant

50-Watt UVlight source and the curr

d on light meximately10%oughly saturadays. Followwatered with

ed with 0.25

peared to be eeks. Howevties. The thrcrocosms an

wn in was a sthe second om. An efforrred on the ems. This wa

n dormancy)

from the aphays, and suff

ver from thiss and two me

V lights in a was rants; thus, iteter readings% that of ated and

wing the thirdh 0.5 liters L every 2-3

healthy and ver, shortly ree nd one sand-or third rt was made extra plants as likely due) as well as

hid outbreak.fered severe before edia-only

8

t s

d

e

.

RioM

Synt

synththe liaccoraddedcomp(dollowaterN), anexpecwhichverifi

beforwere Microas wahowemicrosystem

Figu

Conctest kits purin this lab, r

MesaCenter

hetic Gray Two wetl

hetic gray waterature comrding to the cd to 3500 L pare this blenop) and toothr and was tesnd Nitrite (Ncted. This anh may have ied.

All tested

re being allowadded at a docosm 2 wasas evident inever, this volocosm approm.

ure 4: Mixing

centrations wrchased fromrefer to the w

r:GrayWate

Water Testands microcater to simul

mpiled by LAconcentratioof distilled wnd with an achpaste (pea-sted for three

NO2-N). Asnomaly mayreacted with

d microcosmwed to dry c

dosing rate os discovered

n the delay timlume was nooximately on

g of synthetic

were determinm Hach, Inc. webpage ww

erTreatmen

ting Protoccosms and twlate the treatmA County (19ons listed in Twater and mectual gray wsized) were e species of s a result of ty be explaineh the other sa

s were saturcompletely. of 2 L per hod to have hadme between

ot calculatedne hour apart

c gray water

gar

ned via phot(Figure 5).

ww.hach.com

nt

ol wo media-onment capacit992), the synTable 3. Thechanically

water sample,mixed into 1nitrogen: Amtesting, all ced by the higalts in the so

ated with tap500 mL of t

our, which wd lost more wn solution add. Two solutit, in order to

r (left) and ardens (right)

tospectroscoFor protocol

m.

nly microcosty of LID innthetic gray

he amounts ststirred for 30, a small am1500 millilitmmonium (Noncentration

gh concentraolution; howe

p water threethe synthetic

was regulatedwater than eiditions and dion addition

o simulate rep

application o

opy in the Gols concernin

sms were dosnfrastructure.water was mtated in Tab0 minutes (F

mount of shamters (mL) of NH4-N), Nitns were highation of glycever, this can

e days prior c stormwaterd through a dither microcodrip from the

ns were madepeated dosin

of synthetic g

oel lab usingng the metho

sed with . Based on

mixed le 3 were

Figure 4). Tmpoo f distilled trate (NO3-her than ine added, nnot be

to testing r solution drip nozzle. osm 1 or 3, e outlet; e to each ng to the

gray water to

g water qualiods carried ou

9

o

o

ity ut

RioM

Table 3: Maconcentratiodemonstrate

Synthetic gray waterBlend Comparison Mixture

Resu

insigsuggcomp4,an three of thenitrog

MesaCenter

ass of stock nons in synthee that nutrien

NH4

(mg

r 22

n x

ults Theresul

gnificance,sueststhattheparedtothedaredispla

To create days prior t

ese tests are gen, of any s

r:GrayWate

nutrients addetic gray want concentra

4CL g)

Glycine (mg)

2 321

x

Figure 5: T

ltsofthelabuggeststroneplantswitemedia‐onlyayedgraphi

a baseline fo testing, washown in Ta

species, to th

erTreatmen

ded to 3500 ater mix for tations in actu

NaNO3

(mg) t

36

x

Testing of mic

boratorytesngperformathinthegardytest.Thecally,inFig

for treatmentas collected able 5, confihe effluent.

nt

milligrams testing. The ual gray wat

oothpaste S

x

pea‐size

crocosm effl

sts,whileacancefromtdensprovidresultshaveure6.

t, the effluenfrom the tworming that th

(mg) of watecomparison

ter are much

Panteen Pro‐V

Shampoo

A

x

small dalup

luent in the G

cknowledgithegardens.dedsuperioebeentabu

nt of the finao planted bohe media is

er to achieven mix is showh lower than

Ammonium

(mg/l) N(m

88

6

Goel lab

ngtheirsta.Furthermrtreatmentulated,locat

al tap water soxes and testcontributing

e desired wn to n tested.

itrate mg/l)

Nitrit(mg/

45 13

13 4

atisticalore,thist,whentedinTable

saturation, ted. Results g little

10

te /l)

RioM

Table

Effluen

t

Concentrations

Percent Removal

Table

Plan

Plan

MesaCenter

Figu

e4:Resultso

Influent C

Concentrations

Planted 1A

Planted 1B

Unplanted

Planted 2A

Planted 2B

Unplanted

Planted 1A

Planted 1B

Unplanted

Planted 2A

Planted 2B

Unplanted

e 5: Concent

ted 1

ted 2

r:GrayWate

ure 6: Percen

ofmicrocosm

oncentration

A

B

d 1

A

B

d 2

A

B

d 1

A

B

d 2

trations of ef

erTreatmen

nt Removal o

meffluentteNH4

(mg/

86.

1.5

2.3

4.625.

54.

5.498%

97%95%71%

37%

94%

ffluent resulNH4-N (mg/L)

0.8

0.8

nt

obtained via

ests-N /L)

7

5

3

6 3

6

4 %

% % %

%

%

ting from finNO2-N(mg/L

1.8

1.8

microcosm

NO2-N (mg/L)

13.4

4.0

5.5

13.3 10.3

10.0

18.0 70%

58% 1%

23%

25%

-35%

nal tap waterN L)

N(m

effluent test

NO3-N(mg/L

44.6

2.2

11.8

23.79.3

23.0

27.695%

74%47%79%

49%

38%

r saturation NO3-N mg/L)

4.1

4.0

ts

N L)

%

% % %

%

%

11


Discussion of Results The first trial showed impressive reductions in ammonium (NH4-N) for the

unplanted and both planted microcosms; however, reductions on nitrate (NO3-N) and nitrite (NO2-N) were only evident in the planted microcosms. Based on the literature surveyed in the introduction, these results were as hypothesized. The second trial showed less impressive reductions of all nutrients, but removal was still noticeable for ammonia in all microcosms and, within the planted boxes, for nitrite and nitrate. The difference in results between the two trials may be explained by two possible processes. Most likely, the effluent of the first test was primarily a mixture between the water existing in the soil before the test. Second, and although hypothesized but less likely, the plants and microbes in the planted microcosms could have been nitrogen starved before the first addition, then this starvation could have been satisfied for the second addition.

Davis et al. (2009) report that several studies have measured an increase in concentrations of nitrate and nitrite within stormwater that has passed through LID stormwater infrastructure. This phenomenon is explained by partial treatment of ammonia, which requires an anaerobic stage to drive denitrification, or conversion from nitrate and nitrite to the inert N2 gas. The tested microcosms were not constructed with an anaerobic zone and, as a consequence, these results support the inclusion of this zone in the facility designs for the RMC.

Conclusion of Results The results reported here are surprisingly supportive of the hypothesis that LID

facilities can treat gray water. The results from this trial were expected to be limited to lessons learned about how to establish, maintain, and test the microcosm concept. Taking into account the near-total failure of adequately establishing and maintaining the plant populations, including die-off of the root-pruning transplant technique and the devastating aphid infestation, the quantitative results acquired were a pleasant surprise. These results justify greater investment in repeating these experiments in a manner that yields statistically significant results to promote the use of LID infrastructure to treat both stormwater and gray water.

Equally important were the lessons learned about establishing and testing the microcosms. These lessons are summarized below: Boxes must be planted with very small seedlings, or seeds, and allowed to grow in to

the constricted space If larger plants must be used, washing soil from the roots and maintaining as much of

the root structure as possible is critical Soil-root contact is difficult to ensure, but is critical Microcosms should be kept outside in full sun or at the greenhouse in the Biology

Department where proper lighting is accessible; replication of necessary conditions in the Hydraulics lab, while helpful, would prove overly expensive

Watering must be placed on an automated system with a constant supply. Under establishment conditions, especially with poor root-soil contact, plants tend to dry out quite quickly


Based on pan evaporation tests, evaporation rates in the hydraulics lab are approximately 0.1 inches per day

Boxes must be constructed from acrylic weld adhesive and not any other type of adhesive (i.e. gorilla glue). Also, ALL seams must first be sealed with the medium-thickness acrylic weld and then with silicon

Side panels of boxes must be < 3/16” thickness

System Designs Four systems, based on an amalgam of the traditional bioretention design and the

“Living Machine” technology, were created to explore the potential benefits and downfalls of different design approaches. Detailed schematics of each design can be found in Appendix D. All designs were synthesized with the sole purposes of capture, storage, treatment, and infiltration of the predetermined load of 250 gallons per day.

A common feature across all designs was the presence of a lined, anaerobic zone,

which serves to enhance treatment by promoting the processes necessary to microbe-driven treatment of nutrients (i.e., nitrification and denitrification). The infiltration rate of the in-situ soils is high and, in order to achieve any water storage or to maintain an aerobic zone, a liner must be used to prohibit infiltration.

The plants listed in Table 6 are recommendations for all four of the designs.

Rooting patterns vary greatly between the species listed and the “Design Zone” column prescribes whether the listed species should be planted above the infiltration zone or above the lined anaerobic zones. Careful attention should be paid to this prescription since the root system of such plants posses the potential to rupture the liner and disrupt the design hydraulics of the system.

Table 6: Planting prescriptions common to all system designs

Species Common name Vegetation Type Design Zone

Ericameria nauseous Rubber Rabbitbrush shrub Infiltration

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Greasewood shrub Infiltration

Artiplex canescence Salt Brush shrub Anaerobic

Prunus armeniaca Apricot tree fruit tree Anaerobic

Forestiera pubescense Desert Olive native tree Anaerobic

Disticlis spicata Desert Saltgrass bunchgrass Anaerobic

Stipa Heminoidies Indian Rice Grass bunchgrass Infiltration

Sporobolis airoides Desert Drop‐Seed bunchgrass Infiltration

Yucca harrimaniae yucca succulent All

RioM

Wed

Descr

movelayergray physiproviarea odetailpool,of thelist of

TableMateSand Top SGravNativNativ4” pipFruit

Syste

houseand na 4” dwateradditpipe wthis ppurpo

sizedthe sybotto(inclusystem

MesaCenter

dge System

ription This desig

ement of wats. These laywater througical processeiding both a of stagnationl later. The then overfloe treatment af the materia

e 7: Materiarial

Soil el

ve shrubs ve bunchgraspe Tree

em Details The gray

e. This diamneither choicdiameter verr provides seional 1.5 galwill extend a

provides acceoses.

The waterd to provide fystem. This m geotextileuding the berm. The geot

r:GrayWate

gn provides ter through ayers are desiggh anaerobices. These arvegetative r

n, which wilwater, after ows a berm, area, and is ials necessary

als needed to

ss

water first emeter will moce will interfrtical pipe, weveral key chllons of storaabove the gress to the we

r then immedfor the volumlayer is, in t

e serves as a rm) and to etextile that r

erTreatmen

a constant a system of sgned to treatc, aerobic anre achieved boot layer andl be discussebeing allowelocated at th

infiltrated inty to construc

o construct thUnit Cubic feetCubic feetCubic feetEa Ea Ft Ea

enters througost likely be fere with the which will seharacteristicsage volume round and wiell for neces

diately enterme of water uturn, sandwiwater barrie

ensure that grrests above th

nt

soil t the

nd by d an ed in ed to he end to the surrou

ct this design

he Wedge Sy

t t t

gh a 2” or 1” chosen by trest of the d

erve as a wels to the systeand will actsill be sealed sary sludge

rs a coarse gused when tiched betweeer, meant to ray water is he gravel lay

Fi

unding, nativn, refer to Ta

ystem Am38.9.66.43 3 2.51

diameter pipthe contractodesign. The ll for the watem. The exts as a root ba

d with a threaand hair rem

gravel (cobblthree people en two geoteextend the lcompletely

yer acts as a

igure 7: Diag

ve soil (Figuable 7.

mount 75 9 6

pe from the or of the showwater will thter. This vertra area offerarrier. The taded cap. In

moval and m

le) layer. Thshower, wh

extile barrierength of thecontained wroot barrier

gram of the

ure 7). For a

shower wer house hen fall into rtical drop inrs an top of this

n doing so, aintenance

he layer was hich will flusrs. The structure

within the while

Wedge Desi

14

a

n

h

ign

RioM

allowlayerdesig

entersand remareducprevenarromust serve

layer wherThis othermaintto prebut alcapillof capinsufwell pis proplanttime that p

Adva

allowSeconkind,well pAdditnetwoFinalby a wedges

MesaCenter

wing for free , the water is

gned to conta

One possiing the systelayer above.in in the gracing the amoented by creaow area of th

overcome ine to ensure th

After beinand is kept

e various plaprocess is co

r parts of thistain not onlyevent quick clso a fine gralary rise of tpillarity with

fficient, the wportion of thovided solelys, especiallyperiod. This

penetration o

antages

This is a uws for movemnd, the syste which makeprovides fortionally, sincork of pipes,lly, channelizwaterproof gs.

r:GrayWate

passage/infis allowed to ain the water

ible problemem were to b. If this occuvel layer and

ount of nitrogating a doub

he wedge sysn order to pahat the prope

ng flushed frthere by capant roots “scovered in mos report. It iy a coarse grconditions frain size, in ohe water. Shhin the sand water could bhe system. Ty as a growthy during the es layer will nof the sand la

unique systement of wateem does not res it ideal for ease of cleace the water , the potentiazation is avogeotextile. T

erTreatmen

iltration of wstagnate, th

r within this

m at this stagbypass the grurred, then thd the new wgen removalle or triple l

stem. This wass through aer force nece

rom the systepillary forcescrub” the watore detail in s important

rain size, in ofrom occurrinorder to provhould the folayer becom

back up intoThe topsoil lah medium foestablishmennurture the payer become

em with seveer through narequire either low mainte

aning, maintflows throu

al for root inoided since thThis also pre

nt

water. Due thereby creatin

zone until it

e of the desiravel layer ahe stagnant ater would ml via the systayer of the r

will increase and infiltrateessary to flus

em, the wates, ter.

to order ng vide rce

me o the ayer or the nt plants long ees possible (F

eral advantagatural materier mechanicaenance and senance, and

ugh strata of ntrusion and he flow over

events the ad

Figu

to the lack ofng an anaerot is flushed t

ign would beand immediawater would

move througtem. Howevroot barrier gthe resistan

e into the sansh the system

er is pushed

enough, throuFigure 8).

ges over simials, such as al processingsustainable dpossible tesgravel and sresultant clor the berm in

dded cost of

ure 8: Layer

f roots withiobic zone. Tthe next day.

e if the “newately infiltratd have the pogh the systemver, this coulgeotextile nece the influend layer. It wm will take p

up into a co

ughout estab

milar designs.gravel and i

g or energy idesign. Thirsting of watesoil, as oppoogging is bypn the design layering clay

rs of the Wed

in the gravelThe system i.

w” gray watete into the otential to

m, thereby ld be ear the ent water will also place.

arse sand

blishment, so

. First, tt in-situ sand. inputs of anyrd, the 6” er. sed to a passed. is covered y along the

dge Design

15

l s

er

o

y

RioM

Disad

of. Inhowegeoteregulof cap

Circle

Descrsystepathwdistrtreatinde

Syste

diamof thegray will hthe wsoil s1.5 feappli(heigsystemmaintas a ranaera 0.5 there

FiguSyste

MesaCenter

dvantages Although

n high flow ever, can be extile layers late the amoupillarity in th

e System

ription Inanatte

emwasdesiways,excepibution,wittment.Addiesigningfor

em Details The circle

eter by 2.5 fe circle will water will enhave holes d

water to drainsubstrate. Exeet, from thecation, will b

ght) berm encm. This bertaining a sufresult, will probic environinch thick cwill be a be

ure 9b: Schemem

r:GrayWate

the system isituations, qavoided by m(subsequentunt of time ghe in-situ so

empttomanigned.Thisptbycreatinthgreatersuitionally,thitheaesthet

e system meafeet in depthbe a 4” pipenter the basi

drilled into itn evenly throxtending oute point of wabe a 4” (widcircling the crm will be usfficient depthrovide for thnment. Add

clay liner. Ined of gravel a

matic of the

erTreatmen

is well desigquick conditimanipulatingtly raising thgray water spil could caus

nipulatedetsystemtakngacircularub‐surfacerisdesignoffticsofthefa

asures 4 feet. In the cent

e, where the in. This pipe, allowing fooughout the tward radiallastewater dth) by 10” center of theseful in h of water anhe creation oditionally witn the outer ciapproximate

Circle

nt

gned, there aons within thg soil condit

he cost of thipends in the se water to b

tentiontimeesadvantagrtreatmentrootingdenfersthearchacility.

t in ter

e or

ly

e

nd, of an thin this radiircle (beyondely 1.5 feet in

bottom will be sufficiesuch asaerobic occur. will conallowedmatrix.design,

FigurCircle

are some disathe soil substtions and vias design). Tanaerobic/g

back up in th

eandaesthegeofthesamtpatternamnsities,mayhitectorpla

ius of 1.5 feed the impounn depth (meaof the unit).filled in with

ent space to atrees and sh phase of theUltimately, ntinue out ofd to seep into For a visuarefer to Figu

re 9a: Cross e Design

advantages ttrate could oa the inclusioThere is also gravel zone. he well.

eticfeel,acmetreatmemoreuniformleadtohighanneradiff

et will be thended anaeroasuring up fr. The rest ofh topsoil, allaccommodathrubs. In thie treatment ithe treated gf the system o the surrounal representaure 9a and F

Section of th

to make noteoccur. This,on of two no way to Last, a lack

circularntmherlevelsofferentoptio

e presence oobic zone), from the f the basin lowing for te vegetationis section, this expected tgray water and be

nding soil ation of this Figure 9b. A

he

16

e

k

fn

of

n, he to

A

RioM

list of

TableMateSand Clay Clay high)GravNativNativ4” pipFruit

Adva

outfloThe fusersimperaerobsystemrepla

Disad

the wstagebasinWith

Rect

Descr

desigdesigmeastransfRubbfunctthe unmaximdistri

MesaCenter

f materials i

e 8: Materiarial

berm (4” thi) el

ve shrubs ve bunchgraspe Tree

antages Advantag

ow, while prfinal result w. In additionrmeable berm

bic (central tm also allowcement of su

dvantages Disadvant

water does nos is not guar

n may have toregard to ea

angular Sys

ription The rectan

gn is a straighgn concept eaure and instafer case mad

bermaid box tion as the henit and is demize uniformibution and m

r:GrayWate

s provided in

als needed to

ick x 10”

ss

ges of this deroviding for would also aln, by employm, this systeo nutrient pr

ws for ease oubsurface co

tages of the ot reach. Alsranteed to woo be dug up ase of constr

stem

ngular ht-forward asy to all. A de from a will

eadworks of signed to mity of minimize

erTreatmen

n Table 8.

o construct thUnit Cubic feetCubic feetCubic feet

Cubic feetEa Ea Ft Ea

esign includeboth maximllow for an aying only grem allows forocessing). A

of future maiomponents.

circular systso, the proceork. If the din order to i

ruction, the c

f

Figure 1

nt

he Circle De

t t t

t

e a method tomum functionaesthetically-avel on the f

or the creatioApplication ntenance, w

tem include ess of going design does pinstall either clay liner and

0a: Cross S

esign Am382.51.7

663 3 2.51

o easily monnality and mi-pleasing enfirst 1.5 feet on of two zon

of wastewatwith regard to

possible drythrough the prove unfeasr a leach fieldd berm may

Section of the

mount

5

nitor the quainimal incur

nvironment fand the pres

nes, anaerobter to the ceno clogs, clean

y spots for aranaerobic a

sible, then thd or a septic be difficult

e Rectangula

ality of the rred costs. for camp sence of an

bic and nter of the ning, and

reas where and aerobic he entire system tankto install.

ar Design 17

k.

RioM

mainteducacloggtreat anaervisito9. TableMateLinerGravTops3’x1’NativNativRubb3” pipFruit

Syste

wide,extenThe bcompsand,capacwhichThe cfirst hplastihalf bgray deep-the lealtern

Adva

promare neproviinfiltrallow

MesaCenter

tenance. Thational purpoged or rupturand infiltraterobic and infors. For a lis

e 9: Materiarial r el or Sand oil ’x1’ block fove shrubs ve bunchgrasbermaid tranpe Tree

em Details The Recta

, 3 feet deepnding east frobottom 2 feeposed of eith, in order to mcity, and the h serves to fcell is dividehalf is lined ic and is sepby a 10 inch water efflue-rooting planength of the tnating anaero

antages Introducin

mote enhanceeeded to redides predictaration param

w for ease of

r:GrayWate

he box lid is oses and is eres, then the e the gray wfiltration zonst of the mat

als needed to

or berm

ss sfer boxes

angular desig, and 6 feet lom the show

et of the cell her gravel or maximize sttop foot is t

facilitate planed into two swith impermarated from check dam, nt. The seconts access totreatment floobic and aer

ng the gray wed microbial duce potentiaable flow chameters. The f

construction

erTreatmen

easily removeasily re-sealhydraulics o

water influentnes and can berials necess

o construct thUnit Square feeCubic feetCubic feetEa Ea Ea Ea Ft Ea

gn is 3 feet long,

wer facility. is coarse

torage topsoil, nt growth. ections: the

meable the second which serve

ond section i the water anow path, as wrobic conditi

water to bothtreatment of

ally harmful aracteristics facility has an.

nt

ved to inspecled. If the inof the facilityt. This desigbe used to desary to const

he Rectangu

et t t

es to facilitatis un-lined, tnd remainingwell as expoons prior to

h anaerobic f nitrogen angray water cin addition t

also been de

Figure 10bSystem

ct operationsnternal distriy will still fugn also clearemonstrate ttruction of th

lar DesignAm5431.211 3 3 2 4 1

te shallow, ato promote ig nutrients. T

osing the grainfiltration.

and aerobicnd phosphoruconstituents.to defined vosigned to be

b: Schematic

s for maintenibution systeunction to sarly delineatethe treatmenhe system, re

mount

5

anaerobic poinfiltration aThis design

ay water efflu

environmenus, since bot. The rectanolumes of st

e straightforw

c of the Rect

nance and em becomes afely store, s the

nt concept to efer to Table

onding of theand allow

maximizes uent to

nts should th conditions

ngular shape torage and ward and to

tangular

18

e

e

s

RioM

Disad

shapedistriplanttend t

Syste

Descr

compsectioseriesfirst sverticas thecompThis defindiamthe phprocetreatmand dperfosecon

the syrespesuch benefSlopeentireand, tdecreenhanvisuadesigFigur

MesaCenter

dvantages The challe

es do not natibutions are aing area canto grow tow

em in Serie

ription The syste

prised of twoons that are cs, via an undsection is mocal cylinder e pretreatmeponent of thesection will

ned by mediaeters, whichhysical and besses of watement. The udiameter willorated underdnd section of

The seconystem is desiect to site chaas slope, andficial end use is importane system is gthus, relies oeasing elevatnced subsurfal representatgn, refer to Fre 11b.

r:GrayWate

enges associturally blendalso limited

n be expandeards the wat

es

m is o, autonomouconnected, in

derdrain. Thodeled as a and will servnt (filtration

e gray watercontain strat

a particle h are pivotal biological er and waste

upper layer wl decrease asdrain, whichf the system.

nd portion ofigned with aracteristics,d with es in mind. nt since the gravity fed on sequentiations for face flow. Ftions of this igure 11a an

erTreatmen

iated with thd in to nativeby the restri

ed beyond thter source on

us n

he

ve n) . ta,

to both

ewater will be comps depth increh will allow f.

f

,

lly

For

nd

FigDe

Figure

nt

his design aree or built envictive width e perimeter

nce sufficien

osed of largeeases. Locatfor conveyan

gure 11a: Cresign

e 11b: Schem

e primarily avironments. of the facilitof the storag

nt establishm

er diameter mted at the botnce of the in

ross Section

matic of the S

aesthetic, as Planting pa

ty. To addrege area, as pl

ment has take

material, sucttom of the u

nfiltrated wat

of the Syste

System in Se

rectangular atterns and ess this, the lant roots

en place.

ch as gravel,unit will be ater to the

em in Series

eries

19

, a


System Details Based upon the data attained through the project’s extensive water use study, the

system was designed to manage a total volume of 95 gallons per day. In order to calculate the size of the unit, manipulation of Darcy’s Law was initially employed. However, since ponding depth becomes negligible, this method becomes impracticable. Ponding depth is considered negligible, in this case, since it is illegal for wastewater to percolate up through the soil and pond at the surface, thereby increasing the risk for human contact.

Therefore, a basic calculation for the volume of a cylinder was carried out, using Equation 2 in Appendix B. In addition, a porosity of 0.4 was attributed to the soil within the treatment unit, which increased the initial volumetric storage approximation. In order to maximize the efficiency of the designed unit, analysis of varying depths was carried out. The results of this investigation, when plotted against resultant diameters, yielded the following table and graphic, which can be found in Table 11 and Figure 12, respectively. Table 11: Calculated Pretreatment Unit Diameters for Varying Depths

Depth (ft) Diameter (ft) Slope (ft/ft) 0.5 8.99 N/A 1 6.36 -5.27

1.5 5.19 -2.33 2 4.50 -1.39

2.5 4.02 -0.95 3 3.67 -0.70

3.5 3.40 -0.54 4 3.18 -0.44

4.5 3.00 -0.36 5 2.84 -0.31

Figure 12: Determination of the “knee of the curve” for the system in series design

y=6.3578x‐0.5

R²=1

2.50

3.50

4.50

5.50

6.50

7.50

8.50

9.50

0 2 4 6

DiameterasafunctionofDepth

KneeoftheCurve

Power(DiameterasafunctionofDepth)


Based on the analysis carried out for the varying depths of the unit, an optimized depth of 2.0 feet was determined. This was chosen with the help of the “knee of the curve,” representing the point at which the return of benefits begins to decrease. In this case, the knee of the curve was based off of where the slope began to significantly decrease, correlating to a depth of 2.0 feet and a diameter of approximately 4.5 feet. It is this point that is highlighted, in green, within Table 11.

Advantages The system in series attempts to disconnect the treatment unit from the end use

area, which happens to be a garden in this case. In doing so, this further decreases the chances for human contact with the gray water itself and, also, allows for easier future retrofitting of the pretreatment/filtration step. Such changes/expansions to the system could include management and treatment of blackwater.

Also, since the project is simply dealing with known, contributing sources of gray water, a fairly consistent composition of constituents can be assumed and, therefore, the system can be designed with such targets in mind, such as hygienic products. Based upon both literature (Hawaii Dept of Health, 2009) and the requirements of the system, as determined by the end use(s), a lower level of treatment need be provided. In terms of end use, this system is designed to treat the gray water via the physical processes of filtration and adsorption and the bio-chemical processes of nitrification (via nitrogen-fixing bacteria in root nodules of legumes and the soil column) and denitrification. Additionally, since the water will be reused as a means to irrigate (subsurface) a garden, drinking water standards need not be applied.

Disadvantages Drawbacks to the proposed design include potential clogging of the underdrain,

due to the finer particulate media at the bottom of the initial unit. However, this can be mitigated by perforating the bottom of the underdrain, as opposed to the top. Another potential problem with the system, which extends to the other designs, is concerned with the application of the gray water to the top of the first stage. Without proper separation from the surrounding subsurface environment, roots from vegetation have the potential to grow into and clog the discharge pipe. Remediation of this problem can be accomplished via a properly placed “sock” over the discharge nozzle or with a housing that impedes entrance of the root system(s).

In addition, contamination of ground water could become a problem if the water table rises near or above the bottom depth of the system, which is highly unlikely for this site. Winter months could also prove problematic, due to complications and unknowns associated with both system and system processes’ functionality in cold weather conditions.


Cost Estimations For a complete listing of the companies, materials, and costs used for this project, please refer to Table 12. For specific details, including company contacts, ordering procedures, and costs, refer to Appendix C. Table 12: Company, Material, and Costs used for the RMC Project

Company Material to sell Cost Delivery Cost

Legrand Johnson Construction 1/2" Aggregate $6.60/ton $95.00/hour

1" Aggregate $10.00/ton $95.00/hour

Key Construction 3/4" Aggregate $9.50/ton $85.00/hour

1" Aggregate $9.00/ton $85.00/hour

High Desert Gardens Apricot, Peach, Black Apple

Trees $35.00/tree $70‐$80/hour

Top Soil $66.00/yard $70‐$80/hour

Lovato Trucking (Delivery only)

Can deliver whatever products needed to be sent to the site.

One Time $70‐$80/hour

Aggregate Component Pricing was obtained by making phone calls to local companies in Moab, Utah.

Currently, in Moab, there are two companies who deal with the aggregate necessary to the project’s designs, Legrand Johnson Construction and Key Construction. The aggregate comes in either 0.5-inch or 1-inch (full) sizes. Dependent upon the diameter of aggregate required, either company can offer a competitive price. More importantly, both companies are willing to deliver their products to the project site at the RMC.

Vegetation and Topsoil Component Pricing for the trees and topsoil was found through a recommendation from one of

the aggregate companies. The distributor contact for the trees and topsoil is Janice, the owner of High Desert Gardens, which is also the same company that Kate Call (Caretaker of the RMC) has been using. High Desert Gardens offers a wide variety of trees, including: Black Apple, Peach, and Apricot. Janice has done business with the University of Utah in the past and is both willing and eager to aid the project.

It is important to note that top soil is being purchased, as opposed to reusing the

excavated in-situ soil, due to the importance of the establishment period for the vegetation present. The significance of this parameter has far-reaching effects and, therefore, any initial capital investments will be paid off in the long term (with reduced need for replanting where vegetation has failed).

Pipe Component After referring to Ace Hardware’s website for the drain pipes, it was determined

to purchase “Schedule 40” pipes, which seems to be the most common form of PVC pipe available. In addition, since the pipe is only sold in units measuring 10 feet in length,


there will be some waste, but not enough to cause financial concern. In terms of a costing analysis for each system, the costs associated with the piping were carried out for all of the projects together. This was done since piping was variable for all systems and not a significant portion of the costs. For a listing of the costs associated with the required pipe components, refer to Table 11.

Table 11: Pipe Component Costs for the RMC Project

Miscellaneous Components When the time comes to install the actual project, there will be a need for various

types of tools, including shovels, gloves, compactors and levels. Pricing for these objects was obtained through Ace Hardware’s website. Right now is a great time to buy these products, as Spring is just around the corner, meaning that garden sales can be expected. Additionally, since most of the equipment needed for the project falls under the gardening section, the expected costs should be below those quoted herein. For a listing of the costs associated with the required one time purchases, see Table 13 below. Table 13: Miscellaneous One Time Costs for the RMC Project

Piping Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost

1" Schedule 40, 10' Length $2.33 2 $4.66

2" Schedule 40, 10' Length $5.15 3 $15.45

2" 90 deg. Elbow $1.77 4 $7.08

2" 45 deg. Elbow $1.27 8 $10.16

2" Tee $2.17 1 $2.17

2" Coupling $0.82 5 $4.10

4" Schedule 40, 10' Length $18.47 1 $18.47

4" Schedule 40, Cap $7.07 2 $14.14

Total $57.43

Tool Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost

.5" Drill Bit $14.99 1 $14.99

1" Drill Bit $51.99 1 $51.99

Shovel $18.99 4 $75.96

Rake $31.99 2 $63.98

12‐Pack Gloves $45.48 1 $45.48

Alum. Yard Stick $4.99 1 $4.99

Hacksaw $15.99 1 $15.99

Spade $30.99 2 $61.98

Stanley Level $27.99 1 $27.99

8"x8" Handheld Compactor $25.97 1 $25.97

10"x10" Handheld Compactor $29.97 1 $29.97

Blue PVC Glue, 8 oz. $4.97 2 $9.94

Purple PVC Primer, 8 oz. $4.58 2 $9.16

Total $438.39


Delivery Component A delivery company called Lovato Trucking can be used to deliver all of the

materials needed. Levato Trucking offers a cheaper delivery cost than the other two aggregate companies and has affirmed that delivery to the RMC is possible. Therefore, it is recommended to use Lovato Trucking to deliver all supplies to the project site. This option, of lump delivery, has been chosen due to the various types of materials needed, including aggregate, vegetation, liner, piping, and equipment, and since delivery of all of these components at once is best. Analysis of Systems through a Cost Perspective Each system was broken down according to the amount of aggregate, soil, clay, vegetation and delivery costs needed. Contained in Table 14 are the totals from the cost breakdown analysis. Delivery charges ended up being the same regardless of which system is being put in place, therefore this was included in the overall cost estimate. Ranking the systems with emphasis placed upon economic feasibility yielded that the best options are as follows: the System in Series Design ($1,445.94), the Wedge System Design ($1,452.09), the Rectangular System Design ($1,458.23), and the Circle System Design ($2,023.61). The higher cost associated with the Circle system is greatly due to the installation of a clay liner, as opposed to the implementation of a cheaper, plastic liner or geotextile. In comparison, the Wedge, Rectangular, and Series systems have similar material requirements and are, therefore, approximately the same price. Table 15 contains each of the costs that went into determining this ranking. The highlighted cells are those containing the total costs pertaining specifically to each system.

Table 14: Total Costs for Each System (Aggregate, Vegetation, and Delivery)

Total Aggregate and Vegetation

Cost

Total Delivery Cost

Total Costs

System $ $ $

Circle $722.11 $300.00 $1,022.11

Wedge $150.59 $300.00 $450.59

Rectangular $156.73 $300.00 $456.73

Series $144.44 $300.00 $444.44

On top of the cost for aggregate, soil, clay, vegetation and delivery charges are some basic, one-time charges that are present as a result of doing such a project. These costs include the basic supplies like shovels, gloves, rakes, spades, hacksaws and piping. These costs will apply to whichever systems are chosen to be installed and are necessary to the implementation of the projects. For a table listing all of these consideration, see Appendix C (Table 1 through Table 5).


Table 15: Overall Costs for each system

Total Aggregate and Vegetation

Cost

Total Delivery Cost

Total Costs w/o Pipe

Total Pipe and Liner Cost

Total Cost + One‐Time

Cost

System $ $ $ $ $

Circle $722.11 $300.00 $1,022.11 $430.00 $2,023.61

Wedge $150.59 $300.00 $450.59 $430.00 $1,452.09

Rectangular $156.73 $300.00 $456.73 $430.00 $1,458.23

Series $144.44 $300.00 $444.44 $430.00 $1,445.94

Case Study: DesignBuildBluff Gray Water Management Project

Summary of Site‐Specific Rules and Regulations There are several cases concerning the rights of water allocation and

appropriation, beginning with Winters v. United States, on tribal and other federal lands including: national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, military bases, and wilderness areas. Since the state of Utah’s water rights are based on the doctrine of prior appropriation, where younger rights must yield to older rights, tribal lands are deemed as senior to all others. Additionally, determination of beneficial use and the requirement for meeting such uses do not apply to native lands. As a result, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity prevents states, those in control of water rights, from regulating federal and tribal reserved water rights without consent or specific congressional mandate. This means that the gray water project, located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, can be implemented without governmental approval, such as Utah State Rule R317.

Rule R317-401 is concerned with potential gray water systems in the state of Utah emphasizing that, while the rule allows for such systems to be implemented, local health departments have the first say. Under this rule, gray water may not be applied: above surface; to vegetable gardens (except where application does not affect the edible part of the plant); allowed to pond at the surface; and, discharged directly to either the storm sewer system or any waters of the State. In order to establish such systems, a permit must first be obtained from the local health department, whom has the authority to place an umbrella of operation, maintenance, and repair regulations on the aforementioned system. If the local health department approves of the system, then the request is reviewed by the Utah Water Quality Board, which requires documentation that the applicants (the local health department and gray water system owner) possess adequate resources to operate and maintain the gray water system throughout its entire life, from cradle to grave.


Background Description of the System The project was undertaken over Spring Break 2010 by a group of University of

Utah architecture students, associated with DesignBuildBLUFF. This group seeks to strike an integrative balance between the environment, the builder, the architect, and the home owner. Since natural building methods are preferred to traditional, DesignBuildBLUFF contacted the engineering team for help in designing and implementing an LID for the site’s water needs. After speaking with the client and the DesignBuildBLUFF team, a gray water treatment system was chosen and designed to capture, infiltrate, and treat the gray water generated by the single residence located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, in Southern Utah.

The system was designed on the premise that gray water will originate from

shower, bathroom sink, and laundry sources only.

Description of Objectives and Proposed Site The objectives of the gray water treatment unit were to, first, capture the entire

volume of wastewater being applied. Second, the team aimed to infiltrate and store this volume within the unit entirely. Third, treatment of the wastewater, given the adequate design of the unit, and a return to the natural hydrologic cycle should take place.

Recommendations for Installing Gray Water Systems Initial investments in discussion with the DesignBuildBLUFF architecture group

and within our own group provided the foundation for a successful facility installation. Our entire group had a good idea of the design objectives in terms of facility function and final aesthetics. Communication throughout the project also allowed for efficient delegation of tasks and time management while on site, minimizing superfluous discussion of how to execute any particular task. General recommendations for successful construction are listed below:

Before digging anything, align and lay out all components to verify facility location and orientation

Verify layout and design with engineer, architect, and landscaper to insure form and function can both be achieved with configuration

Double-check alignment with pipe coming from the house Delegate tasks Maintain communication with all involved parties while minimizing

micromanagement Before each step is initiated, revisit all form and function objectives to

maximize efficiency As each stage is completed, revisit all form and function objectives to

insure results were as expected

Three problems were encountered in the construction phase of the gray water treatment facility resulting in unnecessary design modification and digging. Two of these problems related to alignment: the garden was not in perfect alignment with the drain pipe from the house, and; the alignment of the apricot tree was important to the


architect’s vision but was forgotten in the midst of the construction. The third problem was a miss-communication of the design specifications of the infiltration device used. Not surprisingly, all three problems compounded at the final stage of construction: planting the apricot tree.

Taking the time to lay out the pipes and all other infrastructure prior to digging is highly recommended. This provides an opportunity for the designer, the engineer, and the construction foreman to discuss foreseeable issues and adjust the design, as necessary, before a significant amount of work has been done and limitations arise. Specific to our experience, more care should have been taken to align the garden with the drain from the house. We did not realize the garden was misaligned until we had completed excavating the 12’x3’x3’ garden by hand. We were able to re-design the infiltrator receiver to compensate, but both design and function objectives would have better been met if we could have better aligned the garden sufficiently in the first place.

Another problem arose when the infiltrator took up a significant amount of space that had designed for the top soil layer. This limited the placement of the tree and necessitated not only the excavation of a site adjacent to the facility but also the rupturing of the liner, in order to create a water supply to the tree. This was unfortunate since puncturing of the liner will disrupt the designed hydraulics of the facility and the tree roots will be required to grow asymmetrically in order to utilize and treat the gray water. This added to the over-design of the facility: by planting the tree to the side this significantly increased the surface area of the infiltration gallery and reduced both the concentration and amount of treated water available to grow food crops within the second, aerated chamber of the primary garden.

Better communication during installation of the infiltrator could have led to a different set of decisions that would have allowed planting the tree within the garden. All parties were quite surprised by the infiltrator components, with all efforts focused on figuring out how to best use the apparatus and at minimizing further efforts and materials within the miss-aligned garden. In this confusion, the final aesthetic result of the facility was ignored, thereby leading to the decision to install a longer section of infiltrator than necessary. As a result, the option to plant the apricot tree within the treatment basin became impossible and, therefore, had to planted outside, as previously explained.

Conclusion Based on a combination of the extensive literature review, the laboratory tests, and the design cost estimates, it has been determined that the management and treatment of gray water is both feasible and cost effective for the RMC site. The design guidelines provided offer four autonomous approaches that should be selected based on the desires and demands of the client. Any and all of the designed facilities possesses similar methods of treatment and the project team maintains the highest confidence in all areas of gray water management, including capture, storage, and treatment. However, as is understood, these designs are completely theoretically-based and, therefore, are subject to the forces of nature within the environment.


In terms of economics, as is always the case, native materials should be used when possible, in order to reduce the costs associated with both delivery and those materials being replaced. Especially true for the RMC site, delivery costs can be greatly reduced by relying on reuse of native materials and, therefore, incur an increase in the economic and environmental sustainability of this project. Socially, by implementing green infrastructure projects at a satellite institution of higher learning, such as the RMC, the avenues for education and outreach become greatly enhanced. Based on a review of regulations dictating this type of facility, compromises in design may be necessary to appease the regulatory agencies involved; however, a more thorough review of the rules and regulations may uncover an opportunity for jurisdiction or research exemptions. Taking into account all of the components of this project report, it is greatly recommended that the RMC not only employ the LID approaches described herein to treat gray water on-site but also to allow for greater opportunities of research aiming to increase the sustainability of conventional, every day practices. In doing so, such projects will also aid the University of Utah in its journey towards establishing itself as a “green institution.”


Appendix A: References Al-Hamaiedeh and Bino, M. (2010). Effects of grey water reuse in irrigation on soils and

plants. Desalination. 265:115-119. Brandes Mark, Characteristics of effluents from gray water septic tanks. JWPCF, Vol. 50,

No. 11, November, 1978. Boyel, W.C. et al. (1982) Treatment of residential gray water with intermittent sand

filtration. In: Eikum, A.S. & Seabloom, R.W., ed., Alternative wastewater treatment. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 277-300

Davis, A.P., Hunt, W.F., Traver, R.G., Clar, M. 2009. Bioretention Technology:

Overview of Current Practice and Future Needs. J. Envir. Engrg. 135(3):109 Enferadi, K.M., Cooper, R.C., Goranson, S.C., Olivieri, A.W., Poorbaugh, J.H. Walker,

M., Wilson, B.A. (1986). Filed Investigation of Biological Toilet Systems and Grey Water Treatment. USEPA Document 600/S2-86/069.

Erikkson, E., Auffarth, K., Henze, M., Lendi, A. (2002). Characteristics of grey

wastewater. Urban Water Journal. 4:85-104. Gross A, Azulai N, Oron G, Ronen Z, Arnold M, Nejidat A. (2005). Environmental

impact and health risks associated with gray water irrigation: a case study. Water Science and Technology. 52:161–9.

Hawaii Dept, of Health (2009). Guidelines for the re-use of gray water. Accessed: 31

March, 2010 from: http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/water/wastewater/pdf/graywater_guidelines.pdf,. Table 1: Constituents of wastewater from different sources (Wright, 1996).

Karpiscak, M. M., Foster, K.E., Schmidt, N. (1990). Residential water conservation.

CASA DEL AGUA , Water resources Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 6. Los Angeles County (1992). Grey Water pilot Project Final Report. Los Angeles Dept of

Water Reclamation. Los Angeles, CA. Ludwing, A. (2009). Create an oasis with Gray water. Oasis Design, Santa Barbra, CA. Neal, J. Wastewater reuse studies and trial in Canberra. Desalination. 106:399-405. Ottoson J, Stenstrom A.T. (2003). Fecal contamination of gray water and associated

microbial risks. Water Research. 37:645–55.


Palmquist H, Hanaeus J. (2005). Hazardous substances in separately collected grey and

blackwater from ordinary Swedish households. Science of the Total Environment. 348:151–63.

Pinto, U., Maheshwari, B.L., Grewal, H.S. Effects of gray water irrigation on plant

growth, water use, and soil properties. RB&G Engineering, Inc. (2009). Geotechnical Investigation: Entrada Ranch: Grand

County, Utah Rose, J.B. Sun , G-S., Gerber, C.P., Sinclair, N.A. (1992). Microbial quality of and

persistence of enteric pathogens in gray water from various household sources. Wat. res. Vol. 25 No. 1, PP 37-42.

Sherman, Kevin M. (1999) On-site Gray water system research from a national

prospective. Florida, Journal of Environmental Health, issue 134. Todd, John, Brown, E.J.G., Brown, Wells, E. (2003). Ecological design applied.

Ecological Engineering. 20, 421-440 Travis MJ, Weisbrod N, Gross A. (2008). Accumulation of oil and grease in soils

irrigated with gray water and their potential role in soil water repellency. Sci Total Environ. 394:68–74.

Travis, M.J., Wiel-Shfron, A.W., Weisbord, N., Adar, E., Gross, A. (2010). Gray water

reuse for irrigation: effects on soil properties. Science of the Total Environment. In press.

UtahAdministrativeCode(2010).Rule317‐401.GraywaterReuse.Accessed:26

January,2010from:http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317‐401.htm,

Western Region Climate Center (2010). Moab, Utah, climate summary. Retrieved April

2010 from: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?utmoab


Appendix B: Equations and Definitions

Equation 1 444.25.2

11

n

Si

Where: Cu = Coefficient of shower use

Si = Number of days between showers n = Number of surveys taken

Equation 2

Where: Vstorage = Storage Volume (ft3)

A = Area of the Unit (ft2) D = Depth of the Unit (ft) η = Porosity of the Soil

Wastewater: resulting from human consumption of potable water and is a broad

term applied to all sources, such as gray water, black water, and stormwater (vary by level of contamination and contaminants present).

Gray Water: any wastewater originating from the bathroom sink, the shower, or

the laundry. Black Water: any wastewater originating from the toilet or the kitchen sink. Stormwater: any water, not meeting potable water standards, resulting from a

precipitation event that is unfit for direct human consumption/ingestion.

Aerobic Conditions: an environment in which oxygen is present.

Anaerobic Conditions: an environment in which oxygen is absent; typically, concerned with methanogenic reactions.

Anoxic Conditions: an environment in which oxygen has been depleted; however, the difference between anoxic and anaerobic lays in the process of denitrification, where nitrate and/or ammonium is converted to nitrogen gas, and is dependent upon the availability of nitrogen.

Heterotrophic Bacteria: bacteria that must ingest externally-produced biomass in order to survive. Literally, the word heterotroph means “other feeding.”


Autotrophic Bacteria: bacteria that are capable of producing their own needs, in terms of survival. Literally, the word autotroph means “self feeding.”

Redox Reaction: a chemical reaction in which the processes of reduction and

oxidation occur and the oxidation number/state of a molecule, atom, or ion is changed. Reduction: signifies a gain of electrons, or a decrease in oxidation state; also

known as an electron acceptor (oxidizer). Oxidation: signifies a loss of electrons, or an increase in oxidation state; also

known as an electron donor (reducer).

Nitrification: an oxidation reaction where ammonia (NH3) is reduced to nitrite (NO2

-), via Nitrosomonas, and nitrite is reduced to nitrate (NO3-), via Nitrobacter. The

first portion of this reaction, oxidation of ammonia to nitrite, is the rate limiting step, meaning that it is the reaction that controls the extent of nitrification. The bacteria facilitating the oxidation reaction are chemoautotrophs and, therefore, obtain energy through the oxidation of electron donors (ammonia, first, and nitrite, second). Nitrosomonas is an ammonia-oxidizing group of bacteria and Nitrobacter is a nitrite-oxidizing group of bacteria. The reactions below summarize the process of nitrification:

NH3 + CO2 + 1.5 O2 + Nitrosomonas → NO2- + H2O + H+

NO2- + CO2 + 0.5 O2 + Nitrobacter → NO3

-

NH3 + O2 → NO2− + 3H+ + 2e−

NO2− + H2O → NO3

− + 2H+ + 2e−

Denitrification: a reduction reaction, carried out by heterotrophic bacteria

(primarily pseudomonads), under anoxic conditions. In this reaction, nitrate is oxidized to nitrite, nitrite is oxidized to nitric oxide and nitrous oxide, and nitrogen gas is the final byproduct. Additionally, though less common, ammonium (NH4

+) in the presence of nitrite can be oxidized to nitrogen gas (N2). The reactions below summarize the process of denitrification: NO3

− → NO2− → NO + N2O → N2 (g)

or 2 NO3

− + 10 e− + 12 H+ → N2 (g) + 6 H2O NH4

+ + NO2− → N2 + 2 H2O (Anoxic conditions reaction)


Appendix C: Costs First Company:

Legrand Johnson Construction 4910 Old Airport Road Moab, UT 84532 (435) 259-5809 Costs: ½” aggregate for $6.60/ton 1” aggregate (either smooth or fractured) for $10.00/ton Delivery costs are $95.00 an hour

Second Company: Key Construction 2180 S Highway 191 Moab, UT 84532 (435) 259-6224 Costs: ¾” aggregate for $9.50/ton 1” smooth aggregate for $9.00/ton Delivery costs are $85.00 an hour

Topsoil and manure: High Desert Gardens 2771 U.S. 191 Moab, UT 84532-3442 (435) 259-4531 Comments: Janice is the owner of this company, she just delivered 18 yards of Soil Tap to the RMC site. She recommends this soil for our purposes. She will need a few days notice on the pickup as she has to borrow a front loader from someone to load up either a trailer we bring down there or if we use Robbie’s delivery. High Desert Gardens also sells apricot, peach and Black Apple trees. Potted trees currently cost $32.00 to $35.00 and are already trimmed. If these trees are ordered soon then she can sell us bare root trees for a “screaming deal” because she needs to get rid of them. Costs: Top Soil is $66/cubic yard


Anything bought out of High Desert Gardens can be delivered by Lovato Trucking, owned by Robbie Lovato. Robbie can actually deliver anything ordered: aggregate, top soil and trees at around $80/hr. If he's hauling more than one load, he'll negotiate down to $70/hr. Robbie’s phone number is (435) 260-0632.

Table 1: Aggregate and Landscaping Component Costs per System

Aggregate and Landscaping Costs

Req.

L J C (0.5" agg)

L J C (1" agg)

K C (0.75" agg)

K C (1" agg) Req.

H D G

tree Req.

Vegetation

Req. Clay Req.

H D G top soil Total

System Agg. (ton)

Cost ($)

Cost ($)

Cost ($)

Cost ($)

Tree (#)

Cost ($)

Vegetation (#)

Cost ($) lbs $

Top Soil (yd3)

Cost ($) Cost ($)

Circle 3.3 $

21.78 $

33.00 $

31.35 $

29.70 1 $

35.00 6

$ 60.00

277

$ 554.00 0.78

$ 51.33 $ 722.11

Wedge 0.323 $

2.13 $

3.23 $

3.07 $

2.91 1 $

35.00 6

$ 60.00 0

$ ‐ 0.36

$ 23.69 $ 120.82

Rectangular 1.575

$ 10.40

$ 15.75

$ 14.96

$ 14.18 1

$ 35.00 6

$ 60.00 0

$ ‐ 0.78

$ 51.33 $ 156.73

Series 1.6 $

10.56 $

16.00 $

15.20 $

14.40 1 $

35.00 6

$ 60.00 0

$ ‐ 0.59

$ 38.88 $ 144.44

Table 2: Estimation of Lovato Trucking Delivery Times

Delivery

Hours Route

0.5 Fill

1.25 Moab to Site

1 At Site

1.25 Site to Moab

4 Total


Table 3: Miscellaneous One Time Costs for All Project Designs: Tools

Miscellaneous One Time Costs

0.5" Drill Bit

1" Drill Bit

Shovel

Rake

12‐Pack Gloves

Alum. Yard Stick

Hacksaw

Spade

Stanley

Level

8" x 8" Handhel

d Compac

tor

10" x 10"

Handheld

Compactor

Blue

PVC Glue (8 oz.)

Purple PVC Primer (8 oz.) Total

Price/Unit

$ 15.00

$ 52.00

$ 19.00

$ 32.00

$ 46.00

$ 5.00

$ 16.00

$ 31.00

$ 28.00

$ 26.00

$ 30.00

$ 5.00

$ 5.00 N/A

Amount 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 N/A

Total Cost

$ 15.00

$ 52.00

$ 76.00

$ 64.00

$ 46.00

$ 5.00

$ 16.00

$ 62.00

$ 28.00

$ 26.00

$ 30.00

$ 10.00

$ 10.00

$ 440.00

Table 4: Miscellaneous One Time Costs for All Project Designs: Pipes/Infrastructure

Miscellaneous One Time Costs

1" Diameter Pipe (10')


2" 90 Degree Elbow

2" 45 Degree Elbow

2" Tee

2" Coupling


4" Cap

Roll of Visqueen Liner

(500 ft2) Total

Price/Unit $

2.50 $

5.25 $

2.00 $

1.50 $

2.25 $

1.00 $

19.00 $

7.25 $

50.00 N/A

Amount 2 3 4 8 1 5 1 2 1 N/A

Total Cost $

5.00 $

15.75 $

8.00 $

12.00 $

2.25 $

5.00 $

19.00 $

14.50 $

50.00 $ 131.50

Table 5: Delivery Costs Associated with Each Design’s Requirements, LT was chosen

Delivery Costs

Req. L J C

Delivery K C

Delivery H D G delivery

H D G Delivery Req.

L T delivery Total

System hours Cost ($) Cost ($) hours Cost ($) Delivery Cost ($) $

Circle 4 $

380.00 $

340.00 4.00 $

300.00 4 $

300.00 $

300.00

Wedge 4 $

380.00 $

340.00 4.00 $

300.00 4 $

300.00 $

300.00

Rectangular 4 $

380.00 $

340.00 4.00 $

300.00 4 $

300.00 $

300.00

Series 4 $

380.00 $

340.00 4.00 $

300.00 4 $

300.00 $

300.00


Appendix D: Design Schematics

rio me sa cen ter on site treatm ent of gr ay water ...€¦ · sa cen reatm from velopm ... the...

Documents