cal poly san luis obispo water conservation best practices

Cal Poly San Luis ObispoCal Poly San Luis ObispoWater Conservation Best PracticesWater Conservation Best Practices

UC/CSU/CCC Sustainability UC/CSU/CCC Sustainability ConferenceConference

UCSBUCSB

June 24-27, 2007June 24-27, 2007

Presented byPresented by

Dennis K. Elliot, PEDennis K. Elliot, PE

Manager of Engineering and UtilitiesManager of Engineering and Utilities


Low Flow Fixture Retrofits of Low Flow Fixture Retrofits of over:over:

• 200 low flow urinals – 1.5 200 low flow urinals – 1.5 gpfgpf

• 200 low flow toilets – 1.6 gpf200 low flow toilets – 1.6 gpf

• 300 lavatory faucets – 1.0 300 lavatory faucets – 1.0 gpmgpm

• 500 shower heads – 2.5 gpm500 shower heads – 2.5 gpm


• Total project cost $238,000Total project cost $238,000• Water savings:Water savings: 39,000 CCF or 29 Million gal per year - 15% of 39,000 CCF or 29 Million gal per year - 15% of campus totalcampus total Approx 25,000 gal per fixtureApprox 25,000 gal per fixture• Utility cost savings $240,000 per yearUtility cost savings $240,000 per year @$3/ccf for water, $3/ccf for sewer@$3/ccf for water, $3/ccf for sewer

Cal Poly SLO Annual Potable Water Usage

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

260,000

280,000

02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06

Total Water Usage, CCF


Waterless vs. Ultra Low FlowWaterless vs. Ultra Low Flow

Waterless pros & cons:Waterless pros & cons:• Zero water usage saves 45,000 gpyZero water usage saves 45,000 gpy• More housekeeping requiredMore housekeeping required• Oil seal replacementOil seal replacement• Do not pour water down drain!Do not pour water down drain!• Cartridge replacementCartridge replacement• Supply piping still required by codeSupply piping still required by code


Waterless vs. Ultra Low FlowWaterless vs. Ultra Low Flow

Ultra Low Flow Urinal pros & cons:Ultra Low Flow Urinal pros & cons:

• 1/8 gpf achieves 90% of waterless 1/8 gpf achieves 90% of waterless savingssavings

• Less housekeeping requiredLess housekeeping required

• No oil seal or cartridge replacementNo oil seal or cartridge replacement

• Works well with sensored flush valvesWorks well with sensored flush valves


LEED EB Pilot ProjectLEED EB Pilot ProjectFaculty Office East Building - Faculty Office East Building -

20,000 gsf20,000 gsf• Retrofit all fixtures to ULF, Retrofit all fixtures to ULF, sensoredsensored• 1/8 gpf Zurn urinals1/8 gpf Zurn urinals• 0.5 gpm sensored faucets0.5 gpm sensored faucets• Will achieve 60% reduction in Will achieve 60% reduction in usageusage• Qualifies for two LEED points for Qualifies for two LEED points for water efficiency – Credit 3.1 and water efficiency – Credit 3.1 and 3.23.2• Project cost $15,000Project cost $15,000• Payback period 8 yearsPayback period 8 years


Other Conservation EffortsOther Conservation Efforts

• Irrigation controlsIrrigation controls

• Eliminate “once through” Eliminate “once through” coolingcooling

• Public awarenessPublic awareness

• Metering and monitoringMetering and monitoring

• Management of boilers, cooling Management of boilers, cooling towers, water softeners, closed towers, water softeners, closed loopsloops


Unexpected Consequences:Unexpected Consequences:

• Increased concentration of Increased concentration of regulated substances in effluent regulated substances in effluent to city.to city.


Unexpected Benefits:Unexpected Benefits:

• Conservation eliminated need Conservation eliminated need for previously projected future for previously projected future sewer capacitysewer capacity• Resulted in $2M savings to Resulted in $2M savings to Poly Canyon Village Housing Poly Canyon Village Housing projectproject• Funds returned to project to Funds returned to project to help pay for additional help pay for additional sustainability featuressustainability features


QuestionsQuestions??

cal poly san luis obispo water conservation best practices

Documents