IAPMO knows green
by Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD
January 1, 2012
IAPMO’s Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement thoroughly addresses alternate water source requirements.
Green Supplement champions sustainable practices.
Within the past few months,
both ICC and IAPMO completed work on their respective green codes. Having sat
through both hearings, I have to say IAPMO knows green. When it comes to
plumbing issues, it is leaps and bounds above anyone else regarding green
issues.
Green code requirements can be very nebulous. What is green? How far do code
requirements have to go to be considered green? These are the very issues that
are part of the discussion on green code requirements.
IAPMO developed a Green Plumbing and Mechanical Code Supplement. The reason the
document is a supplement is because there are already green code requirements
in the Uniform Plumbing Code and the Uniform Mechanical Code. The green code
requirements go beyond the basic code requirements. While I first questioned
titling the document this way, it does make perfect sense. It would be
insulting of any code to assume that a base code does not have green code
requirements.
The reason IAPMO is far ahead of anyone else is due to its alternate water
source requirements. Some call this water graywater; others call it reclaimed water.
IAPMO clearly establishes what each type of water is. Depending on how you read
the requirements, there are either four or five categories of alternate water
sources.
The four main categories are: reclaimed (recycled) water, rainwater, graywater
and onsite treated nonpotable water. The fifth category would be potable
rainwater. The source is the same — rainwater — however, the rainwater is
treated to be used as drinking water. All the other alternate sources are
nonpotable water.
Alternate water source
The alternate water source
requirements are very thorough, as well as understandable. Anyone involved in
an alternate water source project is well-advised to utilize the IAPMO Green
Supplement.
One of the important aspects of the alternate water source is the treatment,
testing and verification requirements of the water. Any alternate water source
must be properly treated so that it is safe to use in a building. To assure
that the water is safe, there needs to be periodic testing. The testing
verifies the quality of the water as being safe.
A table in Chapter 5 of the Green Supplement lists the minimum frequency of
testing required for the alternate water source. The table also identifies
inspection and maintenance requirements. All too often, building owners assume
that once a green system is installed, they are done with it. Of course, every
engineer recognizes that an alternate water source requires continuous
maintenance, as well as inspection. This will assure that the water source is
safe for the building occupants to use.
One of the more controversial alternate water sources is onsite treated
nonpotable water. Basically, any water source is permitted to be treated and
used for the flushing of water closets and urinals. The common approach has
been the use of graywater for this application. However, the requirements do
not restrict the water source to graywater. Any waste water, groundwater,
rainwater, etc. can be used.
Final hearing chatter
There were some hiccups during
the final hearing for the 2012 edition of the Green Supplement. That is to be
expected with any code or standard. The Green Technical Committee argued over
the maximum water amounts for plumbing fixtures, getting hung up on the
reduction of flush volume for water closets.
Most involved in green support the reduction of water closet flush volume to
1.28 gpf. The odd number is based on a 20% reduction from a 1.6-gpf water
closet. California
will soon mandate 1.28-gpf water closets. I happen to be a big fan of 1.28-gpf
water closets. The manufacturers have done an excellent job engineering these
products. The flush performance of 1.28-gpf water closets is
phenomenal.
The representative for the Alliance
for Water Efficiency submitted a change to not require 1.28-gpf water closets
on remote flushometer valve water closets. A companion to the change was the
definition of remote, which is a water closet located 30 or more feet from a
branch or not having more than 1 1/2 fixture units upstream of the water
closet.
My first thought was to say: “Shame on you. How can you be an alliance for
water efficiency and oppose the complete mandate of 1.28-gpf water closets in
green buildings?”
This proposal garnered a lot of discussion. The final outcome was to not
require any 1.28-gpf water closets if the water closet is more than 30 feet
from the branch. It is unfortunate that this modification was approved. The
committee even agreed that the 30 feet is not based on any technical justification.
This could best be described as a compromise position, one that I never plan on
following. I would hope other engineers are of the same
mindset.
Other hiccups included trap seal protection and food waste requirements. The
committee approved the use of water-supplied sump pumps, even though these
devices are not identified in the Uniform Plumbing Code. That was a bold step,
which many of us applauded.
The next change dealt with trap seal protection. The committee did not accept a
part of the change that would have identified trap seal protection devices
(which don’t use any water). The reason for not accepting these devices was
that the Uniform Plumbing Code has not addressed the acceptance of the devices
yet. Observing from the audience, it seemed completely inconsistent, especially
with the previous change’s approval of a new product not listed in the Uniform
Plumbing Code.
The Food Waste Task Group submitted a change regarding the collection of food
waste or the disposal thereof to a food waste disposer. The goal identified was
the diversion of food waste from landfills. During the research of this
proposal, it was identified that every person accounts for one- half pound of
food waste per day. That translates to more than 87 tons of food waste per
day.
The committee did not reject this change. It was sent back to the task group to
work on, so the group could work with
sanitary districts to get input from their perspective. The concern is the
increase in food waste to the sewer treatment facilities that may not have the
capacity
Even with these few minor blips, the new IAPMO Green Plumbing and Mechanical
Code Supplement is an excellent document. The supplement is expected to be
available in early spring of this year. I would encourage every engineer to
obtain of a copy of it.
Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD
jbengineer@aol.com
Julius Ballanco, P.E., is Editorial Director of PM Engineer and president of J.B. Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C. in Munster, IN. Prior to starting J.B. Engineering, he served as head of plumbing and mechanical engineering for Building Officials and Code Administrators International, one of the organizations that formed the International Code Council (ICC). His engineering consulting work includes the design of plumbing, mechanical and fire-protection systems; forensic engineering; training; and serving numerous manufacturers in different capacities. In addition, Ballanco is the current president of ASPE and a member of both ICC and IAPMO. He can be reached by e-mail at jbengineer@aol.com.
Links
Comments (1)Post a Comment
Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
In the AEC Store
2009 Hydronics Know How II CD
Virtual encyclopedia on modern hydronic systems.
Title: IAPMO Green
By: Niki Bradley
Posted: January 26, 2012 1:58 PM
if IAPMO is so concerned about or tries to promote green, why do they charge an extra green product fee on top of their regular listing fees for green products? These are additional manufacturer's costs that are pushed onto consumers.