B

SUSTAINABILITY

URBAN DOMESTIC WATER TANKS: LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

T Grant and M Hallmann
Abstract
Life cycle assessment and costing of a 600 L and a 2250 L domestic water tank in the Melbourne north-eastern suburbs has shown that significant water savings are possible, that although the energy and materials impact are higher than for reticulated supply they are insignificant compared to other domestic impacts, but with current Melbourne water prices and electricity costs the payback period is longer than the 30 year life assumed. The discounted costs for the 600 L tank are 13% higher and the 2250L tank some 20% higher than reticulated water costs for garden and toilet usage. Region, over 7 years to detem1ine a median year. Data were not averaged across years, as the aim of the model was to maintain the sporadic nature of rainfall events, rather than smooth this out with yearly averaging. Ideally a single weather station would have been better, however, un-averaged data were not readily available. The savings for each tank were plotted against the total roof collection area using rainfall data trom 1994 to year 2000. The results from this are show in Figure 1 for the 600-litre tank and Figure 2 for the 2,250-litre water tank. The graphs show substantial yearly variation in water savings from high in 1995 and very low water savings in 1997. From these graphs, the year of 1998 was selected as a median year in terms of potential savings for a given set of rainfall. A nominal roof area of 220m2 was 600 litre plastic tank used for garden watering only using gravity feed. Since potable supply was not considered, first flush rejection was not necessary . selected for the study as no data was available on average roof areas of Melbourne households. While no first flush system was assumed 0.5mm of rainwater was assumed to be lost to roof adsorption and wetting. This was purely an estimate as no data for this was found.

Introduction
Yarra Valley Water, which supplies the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, commissioned the Centre for Design at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology to research the following three questions: How much water is likely to be saved by using a water tank, given the seasonality of Melbourne rainfall and seasonality of water usage patterns? What are the broader environmental implications of the water tank production, installation, use and eventual disposal? What are the long-tern1 financial implications for residents purchasing water tanks? This paper summarises that study. the results of

Water supply
The rainwater supply model looked at daily rain events averaged across five weather stations in the Yarra Valley

Water Demand
The water demand model from the households also aimed to represent the typical variation in water use by house-

3S

Savings lor last 7 yurs with different rool.reas 6001t.nk supplying garden only

(1012)

_1994
30 2S _._ 20 _

Methods
The two water tank scenarios tested in the study were: A 600 litre plastic tank used for garden watering only using gravity feed (i.e., no pump installed); and A 2,250-litre plastic tank used for garden watering and toilet flushing, with a pump installed with an automatic pressure switch. Mains water (via a backflow preventer) is connected to the tank via a float switch to maintain a minimum level of water in the tank for toilet flushing in times of low rainfall.

-'99S
-1999
1996 1997 1991 2000

'S'" .0

.00

200

300 Rool,Jr.

'00

SOD

600

Figure 1. Percentage of garden water demand supplied by 600-litre water tank over 7 years weather data showing selected "average" year for use in this study.

22

WATER AUGUST 2003

SUSTAINABILITY

holds. Beginning with total water use data from the Melbourne Water Strategy Directions Report (Sinclair Knight Mertz 2002) of 208.9kl/year, this total was distributed across the seasons (while maintaining the same total annual usage) based on data from the a Melbourne End User and Water Consumption Influences Study (Institute for Sustainable Futures 2002). Winter demand Uune to September) was assumed to represent the households' usage with no garden watering. Garden water demand in each month was calculated by examining the difference between water demand in each season and the winter water demand. Water use, however, was expected to vary from month to month within years so the average water use was then adjusted by climate data for each month based on an index developed from the mean maximum temperatures and the number of days over 30, 35, and 40 degrees. This was based on assumption that garden watering is frequent in hot weather conditions but is not used on days with above 1nll11of rainfall. The results of this process are shown in monthly water usage data in Figure 3. Garden water is the only water considered for the 600-litre tank, while the 2,250-litre tank includes water used by toilets. Toilet water usage was assumed to be stable all year round and was estimated to be 19% of the total of 208.1 kl/year per household year per household). (39.69kl per 2,250-litre plastic tank used for garden watering and toilet flushing, with a pump installed with an automatic pressure switch.

tank and pump (if necessary) and all plumbing adjustment required to install the tank. Data for the tank manufacture was collected from Australian Rotomoulding Industries which produce the tanks sold by Yarra Vailey Water. For the materials used in the tank, pump and plumbing adjustments, material production was traced back as far as the original material extraction processing and manufacture including main transport stages. Data for this material production was taken predominantly from Australian life cycle inventory data held by the Centre for Design and originally based on Grant ct al (1999), however some minor materials such as complex polymers, copper and brass were taken from European data sources as no reasonable Australian data were available. The life cycle inventories for each of the materials consists of around 100 individual items consisting of fossil fuel and mineral resources used, as well as emissions to the environment including greenhouse gases, organic substances, toxic emissions, smog contributors, acid gases, nitrogen and phosphorous nutrients. For reticulated water supply pumping energy data was taken from Apelbaum Consulting Group (1997) and chemical treatment was included. In addition to this, avoided capital works were credited to the water tank scenarios, based on expected savings per household, based on information prepared by Sinclair Knight Mertz (2002). For the 2,250-litre tank, 807,350 households were required to offset extra supplies which could be provided by the Upper Watts River Diversion and the Blue Rock Lake to Tarago Reservoir. The impacts of these works were estimated and divided by the number of households to determine the credit for each tank installations (Table I).

with the remainder provided by reticulated water supply for garden demand, and all of the water for the toilet. Scenario 2B: A 2,250-litre plastic tank, collecting water from a 220m2 roof. with all of its available water being used for garden demand and for toilet flushing with the use of a water pump, with the remainder provided by reticulated water supply for garden demand and the toilet. While life cycle assessment attempts to look at the entire impacts of production and consumption of the goods and services used to deliver the functional unit, in reality this is difficult given the complexity of production systems. A system boundary for the study was established to determine what would be included in the study and what would be omitted. Included in the system boundary of the study was the production of the water

Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment is the process of evaluating the potential effects that a product, process or service has on the environment over the entire period of its life cycle.and had been defined by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO,1997) The "functional unit" for this assessment was defined as:
The provision of total water for gardening and toilet flushing to an average YVW-region household for a period of 1 year. (Currently equivalent to l13kl based on Melbourne Water average consumption household and with of 208kl per 35% being from

Snlngs

lor lut 7 yea with dillerent rool areu 22501 tank supplying toilet and garden

60%
50%

-300
Aoof

(M2)

-'995 ~----~--.--- -199.

1996

_1998
-1999
2000

1997

garden and 19% being from toilet usage).

Three scenarios were examined in the study for supplying the functional unit: Scenario 1: The total amount of water for garden watering and toilet flushing is provided by reticulated water supply. Scenario 2A: A 600-litre plastic tank, collecting water from a 220m2 roof. with all of its available water being used for garden demand (using gravity feed),

20~

oj

10%

0%

'00

200

400

500

60C

Figure 2. Percentage of toilet and garden water demand supplied by 2,250-litre water tank over 7 years weather data showing selected "average" year for use in th is study. WATER AUGUST 2003

23

SUSTAINABILITY

Similarly for the 600-litre tank scenario 1,141,682 households were required to offset the Upper WattS River Diversion, so appropriate credits were calculated for each household installation (Table 1). While it is accepted that this level of tank uptake 'is unlikely, the infrastructure offset per tank is valid as an indicator of potential infrastructure savings, which will come about due to a 1arge range of strategies, one of which may be water tank uptake. The material requirements for the avoided infrastructure were estimated from typical pipeline construction costs. No capital savings were assumed in water distribution infrastructure or storm water infrastructure as the small tanks were considered to have little influence on peak flows, which define much of the design and sizing of this infrastructure. The data in Table 2 shows that, on average for the 600-litre tank, more than 94% of storm water flow is released by the tank in rain events above 20mm and more than 91 % for rain events above 5mm. These numbers are reduced to an average of75%

700

eGarden wat., usage esllm,le

600

soo

200

100

Jln

F.b

Mlr

Apr

MIY

Jun

JUI

Aug

S.p

oc.

Nov

D.c

Figure

3. Adjusted

seasonal

garden

water usage data based on daily maximum

temperatures

and number

of days over

30, 35

and 40 degrees

Celsius.

and 60% for the 2,250-litre tank. However for the 600 and 2,250-litre tanks there are 15 and 8 days respectively in a year where no rainfall is diverted. On the water supply side, Figure 4 shows the water supply by the tank over

the year for the 2,250-litre tank, and it can be seen that in high summer, when peak demand for domestic water will be experienced, the tank is empty for days on end. The data that was included from storm water were estimates of reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides from lightning, transport emissions and industrial processes which channel into storm water and end up in Port Phillip Bay. emission A major study of NOx contribution to nitrogen loads in waterways has been undertaken at Chesapeake Bay in the United States. NOx emissions were found to be responsible for anywhere from 10 to 40 percent of the Chesapeake Bay's nitrogen buildup (Editorial 1996). Mitchell (1997) estimates total nitrogen concentration in rainwater in Melbourne to be between 0.22-7.1 mg/L. It could be expected the initial concentration of nitrogen, at the beginning of a rain event, would be highest, with the concentration dropping as the rain cleans the air. The rainwater tank is most likely to capture the early part of rain events before it is overflowing, so it could be expected to capture much of the nitrogen rich rainwater. In fact, of the 86 days in 1998 with rain above 1mm, the 2,250-litre water tank collected the first 200 litres of rain on 60 days. Water collected in tanks is either discharged to the garden, where nitrogen may be taken up by the plants and soil, or to the sewer via the toilet, whereby nutrient loads are managed prior to discharge. Excluded from the study were second order effects, such as the building of the factory that produces the tanks, pumps or water supply equipment.

O-litre nario tank

River Watts Scenario 20000Diversion 2 Component 60000 1 Scenario 0.066 0.024 53.83 4.38 8073508.76 pipework+ (kg) 50000 70.07 Diversion 53000 28of(g) River 43460000steel seam 25000 2 Rock 2A 247.72 28(g) 30.97 52.55 53Copper tanks 5 Welding 120000 200000 1250010000 15.4822960000 Number 80000 5000 28000 148.63 scenario theRolledavoidedLake (m) Blue 2,250-litre Upper Mass Length Upper 20.11 Table :1.. Assumptions Concrete pipe (g) infrastructure 1141682 onWatts scenario to household (2) perTarago Reservoir Equivalence in Pipeline Item

Note: (1) Number of Households in Melbourne required to adopt the specified water tank (600-litre in scenario 2A and 2,250-litre in scenario 2B) to achieve complete avoidance of the storage increase scenario. (2) The diameters of the pipe for the upper Watts River Diversion and the Blue Rock to Lake Tarago Reservoir were calculated1 to be a diameter of

1. 7m

with a liner mass of 820 kgjm.

24

WATER AUGUST 2003

sUS
Environmental Indicators

T A I .N A B I LIT

The

environmental

Table 2. Percentage

rainfall

overflow

from rain events. GOO-litre 2,250-litre 75% 69% 60% 8.00

indicators were reported on individually and not added into a single environmental indicator, except when testing the sensitivity of the results to different variants. The individual indicators were normalised against a national per capita reference (that is divided by the total average impact in each category for each Australian).

Average for events above 20mm Average for events above 10mm Average for events above 5mm Number of days with 100% water tank overflow

94% 93% 91% 15.00

Figure S shows the same results relative to Scenario 1, the mains water only scenario. The two water tank scenarios (2A and 213) have lower results for water use and nutrient emissions (eutrophication) than the reticulated water supply scenario. On all other indicators the water tank

Table 3. Capital and maintenance cost of tank over 30 years. Tank Capital GOO-litre Tank $370 +38.50 delivery Tank Capital 2,250-litre $510 +38.50 delivery

scenarios have higher impacts due to increased $35 $70 Plumbing energy and material use. . Plumber $150 $200 The net value for nutrient Life Cycle Costing emissions for the 2,250$350 Pump To determine the litre tank (scenario 213) are Electrician $100 economic benefits and costs negative because the water Total $593.50 $1,268.50 of the water tank from the tank is diverting more $529 Pump Replacement nitrate from rainwater consumers' perspective, a Note pump replacement is assumed after 15 years and price is emissions that is being life cycle costing was underassumed to increase by 3% per year in line with CPl. released across all life cycle taken. The costing was done stages of water tank over an assumed 30-year life of the water tank. A discount Results production and use. rate of 4% per annum was used to adjust Figure 6 shows the same data as in Table 4 shows the resulting water the value of future expenditure and an Table 5 but divided by the national per savings achieved by the 600-litre and annual inflation rate of 3% was assumed. capita impact for each category. This 2,250-litre water tanks. The 600-litre tank Costs included in the assessment were results in normalised data which give an is used for 104 days and supplied 17.Skl indication of how significant the water the purchase of the water tank and pump of water. On the other days of the year supply via the three scenarios, is in relation and installation costs. Water and electricity it is either empty or not needed (assuming costs over the life of the tanks was also to overall impacts in each environmental no garden watering is needed in winter, category. It shows clearly that the water included, however, additional capital or on days of significant rain events in works were assumed to be built into this use indicator is by far the most significant other seasons). The total saving for the result of all the indicators examined. Solid water price and were not itemised household water bill is around 8.4%. The waste from disposal of the tank at end of separately. 2,250-litre tank saves around 62kl of water life is the next most significant The results for the life cycle costing as it has greater holding capacity and is indicator.[TG 1] were calculated as net present values for therefore empty less often, but also is used water supply for the toilet and garden for the toilet as well as garden applications, Economic Aspects water demand. Table 3 shows the main and can therefore be used to some extent Table 6 shows the results of the life cost data used in the tank purchase instalall year. cycle costing in net present values with lation while electricity and water supply Environmental Impacts scenario 1 being the cheapest option, and were costed at SO.1368/kwh and scenario 213 (the large tank installed with SO.7523/kL respectively. Table 5 shows the absolute results for a pump) being about 20% more expensive. the three models of the scenarios while

fromwater hold50875 of required GardenReticulated during 17518 totalthatof water Mains 95288 saved water 8.4% 32900 for 29.6% garden/toilet Number housewatertank 272 Mains 104 supplies use 15.5% tank water days 54.9% Proportion Table 4. Mains WaterL saving to top up the 1-year use of the tank. Savings Total 61931 Scenario

Comments

600-litre tank for garden use only, no pump 2,250-litre tank for garden use and toilet, with pump Assumptions Rainfall data from 1998 for Yarra Valley Water region. Available roof area: 220 m2. Rainwater lost to roof adsorption and wetting: 0.5 mm. No first flush system used. Tank overflow directed to the stormwater. Garden not watered in winter months, nor on days with rainfall above

1 mm.
WATER AUGUST 2003

25

SUSTAINABILITY

S>

", ,. i " t :
.. 0. .. .~ 0.. ~ ~ E
S>

11 .. .. :2 ... ... .;, .c; N <i :2 700.. 800 400 600 "!' N .;. 300 100 200 <

~OO

~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~

..

1100)

.......

usage

--supply

by tanks

..

~
.c;

u" .. ... 'u 0 Z 0 ~ ..;, ;, ~ ~

.. :
.. .;. N N

..

..

Figure 4. Total water demand by garden and toilet and supply of water by tank for 2,250-litre tank being used for garden and toilet applications. A voided water storage infrastructure is not insignificant in the context of water tank use, however it is not nearly large enough to offset the impacts of the water tanks constructioI? and operation (except potentially in environmental flow-related impacts which have not been included in this study).

All options have net costs associated with their implementation. The additional costs of the pump make the larger water tank less favourable even though more water is saved.

Discussion and Conclusions

Water Savings Table 5. Characterisation of impacts from each scenario. The two water tanks investigated in 155" ~OK,{ Slcn.rio 2b Q c t~ ,g..95.321.0-~14" jj 0; 100" :i~ 11 E Scenario 2A j32f~ og ~kg Ave Scenario -13.1Scenario 20011.9 14.2~ 435= 22.1 33.6 11.5 51 132 0.378 10.9 0.530 2.20113 66.1 2 4.64 152 1.08 27.90.482 45.5 kLC2H4 Impact ::0category1.29waste28 31 Unitmg~B(a)P ~56.2 equivalent g P04 S04 0 rIJ CO2 mgH2O kgMJPb a .. 4133% ~ 3.25~ ~ oU7'l 'j; ~(,.;" $ this in =t 0 E Ave ~ -.\00" ~ C Sl"Cn;trio 2astudy lead to significant reductionswaste : 'C~ -~~ ~"" ~ ~ .~ o ~ 400'{ ormation IKK~ y Demand 0" water use from reticulated supply. This g 8 -100" 1(211'1is in the order of 8% of total household demand for the 600-litre water tank and 30% for the 2,250-litre water tank. For toilet and garden water demand, the areas where the tank is targeted for use, the savings are 15% for the 600-litre water tank and 59% for the 2,250-litre water tank.

! ]. 1
1!!
"Ii ~

Po

'I

I :J

Environmental implications Using data supplied by Mitchell (1997) nitrogen capture by the rain, which is diverted from storm water through water tank collection and use, leads to reductions in nutrient loads to local rivers and streams and Port Phillip Bay. The energy and material impacts of water tank manufacture and operation are substantially higher, in percentage terms, than the energy in equivalent reticulated water supply, especially when a pump is used with the water tank. The scale of the impacts needs to be kept in perspective. The overall additional annual impacts of having a water tank installed (for greenhouse impacts), are roughly equivalent to 20km and 60km per year of car travel for the 600-litre and 2,250-litre tanks respectively. This suggests that the absolute impacts of the water tank are not large in proportion to other impacts. This is reinforced by the normalised results for the three options, which show water use to be the most significant environmental indicator in the study. 26 WATER AUGUST 2003

Figure 5: Comparison of water tank scenarios with the baseline (reticulated water supply) for each environmental indicator. Note: Scenario 2A 600-litre tank for garden, Scenario 28 2,250-litre tank with pump for garden and toilet usage.

SUSTAINABILITY

Financial implications Neither the 600-litre nor the 2,250litre tank pay back within the 30 years under current water prices and the assumed 30 year life of the tanks and their components. If water prices were approximately 25% higher, the 2,250-litre tank would pay back in 30 years. The discounted costs for the 600-litre tank are approximately 13% higher than reticulated water costs for garden and toilet usage. The discounted costs for the 2,250-litre tank are 20% higher than reticulated water costs for garden and toilet usage. Other Issues The smalIest commercial water pumps currently being used for water tank applications can deliver around 50 litres per minute. While for garden usage this may be needed, for toilet water a much slower rate of 5 litres per minute could be tolerated, This suggests that currently used pumps may be oversized and inefficient given the relatively smalI task required and alternative solutions to supplying water into the toilet would improve its impact substantially. There is a range of improvements and optimisation which can reduce the overall impacts of the water tank and bring it closer in energy and greenhouse terms, to the impacts of reticulated water supply. Further work comparing the energy efficiency of water tanks, as a water conservation measure, compared with other strategies, would be of value.

Table 6. Results of the life cycle costing in net present value with discount rate of
4%.

Scenario 1

I Scenario 2A - SOo-lilrelank $2.135 I

I Scenario 28 2.25O-lilrelank $2.568

$2.412 I

".' ...

,,-

.
Institute for Melbourne Sustainable Futures End User and (2002). Water Consumption Influences Study. Redfern. Institute for Sustainable Futures: Page 18. International Organization for Standardization (1997). ISO 14040 Environmental Management StandardLife Cycle Assessment. Principles and Framework. Sydney .. Australian Standards - Published as AS 14040: 1998. Mitchell V G,. McMahon T A et al. (1997).
Model/illg tile possible IItilisatioll <if stonllwater alld wastewater witllill all IIrball catcllme'll. A WW A

The Authors Dr Tim Grant is Assistant Director

Manager of the Centre for Design at RMIT University, Melbourne, email: Mark Hallmann tim.grant@m1it.edu.au. is currently a Master candidate at University ofTwente, The Netherlands.

References
Apclbaum Consulting Group (1997). The Australian transport task, enerb'Y consumed and greenhouse gas emissions Volume 2. Barton, ACT, Dept. of Primary Industries and Energy. Editorial (1996). "Cross-Media Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay." Resources For tile Flltllre, Summer 1996, (124). Goedkoop M J (1995). Eco-illdicator 95 - Filial report. Amersfoort (NL). NOH report 9523 and PRe Consultants. Grant T (1999). Life Cycle Assessment Australian Data Inventory Project - Summary Report. Melbourne. Centre for Design at RMIT and CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control.

17th

Federal

Convention.

Melbourne.

Clayton, Vie .. CRC for Catchment Hydrology. Sinclair Knight Mertz (2002) Issues associated with accessing new water resources for greater Melbourne. Melbourne Water Strategy Directions Report.

Fraction of Australian, annual per capita impacts

0.15 0.125 01 0.075 0.05 0.025

o

0.025
Global Warming Acidification Eutrophication Heavy metals Carcinogens Photo Oxidant Formation Pesticides Cumulative Energy Demand Waler Use Solid waSle

.No

tank

.6001ltre tank

.2250

litre tank

Figure 6. Comparison of water tank scenarios with against national per capita impacts for each indicator category (normalisation). WATER AUGUST 2003 27