1 of 22

Toilet Flushers�Making Skyline More Sustainable

Small Change, Large Impact

​

​

​

Eric, Alexander, Geo, Ahmed, Evan, Joey

2 of 22

Why We Chose This?

  • Drought
    • Water Conservation
  • Raises awareness
  • Long-term savings

3 of 22

Experiment Set-Up

    • 10 Minute Observation (1:30 pm)
    • Picked a bathroom for each building (2, 6, 7)
    • Collected Number of Flushes
    • Goal: Total Gallons Used on Average Comparison
      • Men: 🡪(Average GPF of Urinal & Toilet)*(# Flushes)

🡪(Number of Gallons Used)*(Total # Urinals & Toilets)

      • Women: 🡪(GPF of Toilet)*(# Flushes)

🡪(Number of Gallons Used)*(Total # Toilets)

4 of 22

Survey Set-Up

  • 10 Individuals (5 males/5 females)
  • Picked a bathroom for each building (2, 6, 7)
  • Collected Approximate Number of Flushes
  • Same Goal as Experiment
      • Men: 🡪(Average GPF of Urinal & Toilet)*(# Flushes)

🡪(Number of Gallons Used)*(Total # Urinals & Toilets)

      • Women: 🡪(GPF of Toilet)*(# Flushes)

🡪(Number of Gallons Used)*(Total # Toilets)

5 of 22

Observations 1

# of toilets

# of urinals

Total # of T and U

Brand Toilet

Brand Urinal

Dual Flush?

Waterless?

Toilet Water Usage

Urinal Water Usage

7

8

8

American Standard

American Standard

No

No

1.6 Gpf/6 Lpf

1 Gpf/3.8 Lpf

4

5

5

Sloan

American Standard

Yes

No

1.1 to 1.6 Gpf

1 Gpf/3.8 Lpf

9

8

9

American Standard

American Standard

No

No

1.6 Gpf/6 Lpf

1 Gpf/3.8 Lpf

9

6

8

Kohlr

Kohlr

No

No

1.6 Gpf/6 Lpf

1 Gpf/3.8 Lpf

# of Flushes for 10 minutes (Experiment)

​

​

​

​

​

Bld 6 (M)

Bld6 (W)

Bld 7 (M)

Bld 7 (W)

Bld 2 (M)

Bld 2 (W)

Bld 4 (M)

Bld 4 (W)

9

2

8

3

2

8

n/a

n/a

8

3

2

5

6

2

n/a

n/a

4

6

5

4

4

7

n/a

n/a

7

4

5

4

4

6

n/a

n/a

Avg. gallons per flush of toilets and urinals:

1.3

​

 

Gallons of flush of toilets for woman only:

1.6

Avg. gallons per flush of toilets and urinals:

1.175

​

 

Gallons of flush of toilets for woman only:

1.35

Current

New

6 of 22

Results 1

Current

Future

BLD

Number of Gallons used:

Total Gallons Used on Avg:

Bld 6 (M)

8

70

bld 6 (W)

5

42

bld 7 (M)

6

44

bld 7 (W)

5

40.5

bld 2 (M)

5

35.25

bld 2 (W)

8

57.375

BLD

Number of Gallons used:

Total Gallons Used on Avg:

Bld 6 (M)

9

77

bld 6 (W)

6

50

bld 7 (M)

7

49

bld 7 (W)

6

48

bld 2 (M)

5

39

bld 2 (W)

9

68

BLD

Water Gallons Saved

Bld 6 (M)

7

bld 6 (W)

8

bld 7 (M)

5

bld 7 (W)

8

bld 2 (M)

4

bld 2 (W)

11

Experiment

7 of 22

Observations 2

Survey

​

​

​

​

Buildings

# of flushes (M)

# of flushes (W)

Total Gallon used on average per person (M)

Total Gallon used on average per person (W)

Bld 2

7

12

9.1

19.2

Bld 4

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bld 6

10

16

13

25.6

Bld 7

4

4

5.2

6.4

Avg. gallons per flush of toilets and urinals:

1.3

​

 

Gallons of flush of toilets for woman only:

1.6

Avg. gallons per flush of toilets and urinals:

1.175

​

 

Gallons of flush of toilets for woman only:

1.35

Current

New

8 of 22

Results 2

$0.01 per gallon in San Bruno.

Current

# toilet*gpf*53/day

​

# urinal*gpf*53/day

​

​

Future

# toilet*gpf*53/day

​

# urinal*gpf*53/day

​

​

Future

# toilet*gpf*53/day

​

# urinal*gpf*53/day

2459.2 gal

​

1431 gal

​

​

​

2074.95 gal

​

39.75 gal

<--pint

​

​

2074.95 gal

​

0 gal

<--waterless

1.35

Dual Flush Gal Avg

0.125

Pint Urinal

Current Total Cost:

$38.90

Future Total Cost (pint):

$21.15

Future Total Cost (waterless):

$20.75

1.6

Current Single Flush

1

Current Urinal

9 of 22

Results 3

10 of 22

Results 4

11 of 22

Results 5

12 of 22

Results 6

Plotted in order by alternating between women and men of building 6, 7, and 2.

13 of 22

Toilets

  • Pros:
    • 4,000 Gallons of water saved annually in a residential household that converts to these units according to Environmental Protection Agency
    • Innovated Design: Gravity and Large Trap way
  • Cons:
    • Higher maintenance if using low volume flush
    • 8 years desirable Return on Investment (ROI)

Michael Carson, Senior Mechanical Engineer at Purdue University found it was a 43% decrease in water usage. (10,228 gal/month to 5,803 gal/month during 12-month period)

14 of 22

Waterless Urinals

  • Pros:
    • Complete Water Conservation
    • Urine traps built-in/Needs refilling a few times per year
      • Refills 🡪 Cost: < $10
    • Cost Saving
    • Proper maintenance=Less Maintenance
  • Cons:
    • Improper maintenance = more maintenance
      • Odor
      • Piping Issues

15 of 22

Pint Urinals

  • Pros
    • Between 90% and 97% reduction in water usage typically 95% reduction
    • Rinses bowl more regularly to remove hair and debris from sight
    • No need for any additional chemicals or labor
  • Cons:
    • No short-term waste pipe blockages except long term
    • Sparge pips feeding urinals with water must be free from blockages
    • Need reliable timer flush controllers

​

16 of 22

17 of 22

Cost 1

SF🡪$500 per urinal rebates when switching to a more sustainable toilet

Possible various state grants or district funding to assist replacement

Waterless Urinals: $250+

  • American Standard: $525
  • Sloan: $236

Pints Urinals: $165+

  • Tota: $184
  • Zurn: $254
  • American Standard: $358

​

Sloan Flushometer Unit: $145 to $255

18 of 22

Cost 2

Option 1 with Waterless

Materials: $381 per set

Total Materials: $10577

Labor: N/A Facilities

Maintenance: $10

Total Cost: $10968

Option 2 with Pint

Materials: $329 per set

Total Materials: $9173

Labor: N/A Facilities

Maintenance: $10

Total Cost: $9512

Considered community service opportunity to help install; would reduce labor cost or just raise awareness

19 of 22

Steps to Implementation

  • Who do we talk to?
    • John Doctor 🡪 Proposal with Total Cost
    • SAN Sustainability Ambassador Network
      • Contact Richard Hsu, the Sustainability
    • San Mateo’s School District for Approval
    • Whole process will take about 3+ months

​

John Doctor (Facilities Manager)

doctorj@smccd.edu

(650) 738-4166

Skyline College�Facilities Planning and Operations�BLDG 21,�3300 College Drive�San Bruno, CA 94066.

20 of 22

Conclusion

  • Long Term Water Conservation
  • Long Term Cost Effective and Saving
  • Raises more awareness to benefit our campus and the environment
  • Continuance path to sustainability

21 of 22

Acknowledgement

Carina Anttila-Suarez

Joe Fullerton

John Doctor

Clarissa Chee

Melanie Chua

People who were surveyed

22 of 22

Work References

  • http://www.grainger.com/content/supplylink-plumbing-products-save-water
  • https://www.ahla.com/Green.aspx?id=31398
  • http://www.waterlessurinals.co.uk/Waterless-vs.-Low-Flushing.html
  • https://waterlessco.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/pros-and-cons-of-waterle
  • http://www.ecofriend.com/pros-and-cons-of-opting-for-dual-flush-toilets.html.ss-urinal-systems/