Code Classroom Since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
Continued from page 18 The goal of LEED is to develop more
there has been a federal mandate for saving energy through various methods, including water conservation. Recently, since the inception of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, an abun- dance of products introduced to the market have been touted as conserving water. The goal of LEED is to develop more sustainable build-
ings by promoting energy conservation through the design and construction progress. I applaud their efforts. The green building craze, however, has created a demand that has many unknowing (or not so well intentioned) individuals, trying to cash in on the water conservation movement. Engineers, designers, contractors and consumers need to be aware that many of the products being marketed as energy or water conserving conserve neither water nor energy.
The test I came across a product that would fall into the catego-
ry of “all hype and no performance” and decided to put it to the test to see whether it really does save water. (The product shall remain nameless, as I don’t want a visit from their attorneys.) The device consists of a soft plastic washer with a rub-
ber o-ring in a slot that is apparently supposed to flex or modulate to maintain a constant flow rate over various pressure inputs. It costs only a few cents and was being promoted as saving great amounts of water and energy. The salesperson said that all you had to do was replace the aerator on your faucet with “this new water saving aera- tor” and that large quantities of these devices had been sold to water utility companies for distribution to their customers. I had two packages of aerators that listed flow rates of
6 lpm (1.58 gpm) and 9 lpm. (2.37gpm). I decided to install and test one of the 6 lpm aerators on the sink in my office. I started by measuring the flow rate prior to removal of the aerator that came with the faucet, which meets the 1992 Energy Policy Act and was installed with- in the last five years. Prior to removal, the flow rate was 1.5 gpm; with no aerator, it was 3 gpm. These tests gave me a baseline for comparison with the new aerator. The water pressure in my office is between 45 and 50
pounds per square inch. After I installed the new aerator, the first thing I noticed when I turned on the faucet was that the water shot out of the faucet in a couple of streams with the force of a small fire hose and bounced off the bot- tom of the sink, splashing on everything within three feet of the sink, including me. The flow rate with the new “water conserving” aerator
was about 2.9 gpm. The performance of the aerator was very poor. If I were to replace the existing aerator on my faucet with this aerator, I would actually use about 1.4 more gallons per minute. This simple test shows that this myth is Busted! Many
inferior products are being sold by people wanting to cash in on the green movement. They are selling the idea, not the solution. If you deal with reputable, well-established manufacturers you should be fine.
Page 20/Plumbing Engineer
sustainable buildings by promoting energy conservation through the design and
construction progress. I applaud their efforts. The green building craze, however, has
created a demand that has many unknowing (or not so well intentioned) individuals, trying to cash in on the water conservation
movement. Engineers, designers, contractors and consumers need to be aware that many of the products being marketed as energy or water conserving conserve neither water nor energy.
Faucet regulations In the past, faucets were not a primary focus of water
efficiency advocates, given that the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 and subsequent EPAct actions limited faucet flows to 2.2 gpm (8.3 L) (at 60 psi). In the mid- 1990s, however, the U.S. model plumbing codes and stan- dards (ANSI standard ASME A112.18.1/CSA B125.1) further reduced that maximum flow rate to 0.5 gpm (1.9 lpm) for public (non-residential) applications. This standard is frequently neglected, because many
people are not aware of it. Some design engineers, speci- fiers, plumbing contractors and building owners believe that the maximum flow rate for faucets in non-residential applications is still the EPAct rate of 2.2 gpm. This confu- sion has resulted in the illegal installation of non-compli- ant faucets in some new commercial projects The governing standard and test procedure, as estab-
lished by the U.S. Dept. of Energy ((DOE), for faucets was and continues to be the ANSI national standard, ASME A112.18.1/CSA B125.1. In the early 1990s, this standard was changed to reflect a lower maximum flow rate of 0.5 gpm (1.9 lpm) for all “public” applications, which are all applications not defined as “private.” The codes (Uniform Plumbing Code, International
Plumbing Code, and the National Standard Plumbing Code) each define “private” as inclusive only of fixtures in residences, hotel/motel guest rooms and private rooms in hospitals. The “public” category includes single-tenant and multi-tenant office buildings, schools, gymnasiums, manufacturing facilities, public buildings (including those where the general public is denied access), bars, restau- rants, retail stores and any other type of building that does not fall within the “private” definition. Metering faucets for public applications are subject to
February 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40