Building Code Changes

Tuesday, April 15, 2008 01:40 PM

Prince George, B.C. - The province has introduced changes to the B.C. building code, that will see more insulation added to new homes, and low flow toilets installed.

The new rules call for homes, multi-family residential buildings under five storeys and small commercial and industrial buildings will have new insulation requirements. In the case of housing, builders can choose to achieve an EnerGuide Rating System rating of 77 as an alternative to meeting the insulation requirements. The EnerGuide system uses computer software to consider the building as a system, and includes an energy efficiency rating. Builders can elect to use a combination of different building materials and techniques to achieve an EnerGuide rating of 77.

To reduce water use, ultra low-flow toilets (no more than 6 litres per flush) and other water saving plumbing fixtures will be mandatory.

The new green requirements, which apply to all new construction, come into effect on Sept. 5, 2008, giving industry and local governments time to become familiar with the changes.

More information on the new green building requirements is available online at www.housing.gov.bc.ca/building by clicking on the Greening the B.C. Building Code button.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 01:40 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: lostfaith on April 15 2008 2:58 PM

The low flow toilets are a great idea however some local government officials will still need the very high flow models. Some with booster pumps and seat belts.

Posted by: justamom on April 15 2008 3:26 PM

hehe...

Posted by: Harbinger on April 15 2008 4:49 PM

No urea formaldehyde? No wrapping buildings in air tight plastic which causes leaky condo syndrome?

Posted by: owl on April 15 2008 5:22 PM

Hopefully they can get some low flush toilets that will not require a second flush. Next we will have electronic monitors hooked up to the local flush police to make sure the toilet is not flushed more frequently than 5 times a day per person. More than that and it will cost 50 cents per flush.

BTW, maybe they need to require a separate unisex urinal which can be a no flush urinal.

http://www.waterless.com

Posted by: thereasonableman on April 15 2008 5:27 PM

I guess in the big cities, low flow toilets would drastically reduce the amount of liquid sewage that needs to be processed. For those that have their own system, I guess they could get retrofitted with the aftermarket, "Al Bundy Super Deluxe High Flow, Armchair, Cushioned Seat, Hockey Game Radio Broadcast, Vibrating, Heated, Automatic Flush" model.

Posted by: rightwing on April 15 2008 5:41 PM

low flow toilets are a joke. They are 2-3 times the cost. Another way to shaft us

Posted by: lostfaith on April 15 2008 6:21 PM

It's more for using less water than it is for having less sewage.
Use the old style with a few bricks in the tank.

Posted by: Palopu on April 15 2008 7:04 PM

Low flow toilets mean more sewage in less water. Less water into the sewer system means more pollution of our rivers.

For every action there is a reaction.

In those areas where there is lots of water, more water into the river system is a good thing.

For most of these civil servants, and politicians, their next original thought will be their first.

Posted by: owl on April 15 2008 8:42 PM

"Less water into the sewer system means more pollution of our rivers."

You really believe that? the sewage coming from a source such as a house is certainly more concentrated, but 8 oz of urine is still 8 oz of urine, no matter how little or how much water you add to transport it trough a pipe.

The same goes for solid waste.

Except that solid waste needs a carrying mechanism which is the water in a pipe. In a gravity feed system, especially one with several traps along the way to prevent sewer gases from entering an inhabited space, the amount of water is critical.

So, here is some experience with low flush toilets.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/home/toilets

Just think, the Romans had water borne sewage systems. We have barely progressed in over 2,000 years.

;-)

Posted by: Palopu on April 15 2008 9:20 PM

Owl. 8 ounces of urine in a gallon of water is diluted to a much larger degree than 8 ounces of urine in a pint of water.

Anything that helps break down this sewage is a good thing.

Posted by: owl on April 15 2008 9:32 PM

palopu ... you wrote:

"Less water into the sewer system means more pollution of our rivers."

In fact, the total amount (weight, volume, wahtever) of pollutants are the same. The less water, the higher the concentration, is what you likely meant.

The total amount of water going in a direct deposit from a city the size of PG into a river such as the Fraser at PG is miniscule compared to the amount of water from the river.the variance from low flush to normal flush toilets would be minor.

The realities of the matter is that PG is one of the few places in BC that has a tertiary treatment facility.

By the time the sewage is treated, the pollutants are virtually all extracted and the water is clean enough to water your lawn. I doubt that a drop in say 10% of water volume would cause a problem, far from it.

I think it is time we gt some of these British toilets here where you can set them for what they are going to be used for and the amount of water used in the flushing will change accordingly.

http://funlobby.com/myuse/2008/images/funny/ipottie/1.jpg

Posted by: thereasonableman on April 15 2008 10:41 PM

Does it have settings like:

- Went for Mexican last night
- Ate a whole large pizza by myself
- Hot wings night at the pub
- Got Norwalk (the maximum setting)

Posted by: seamutt on April 16 2008 7:16 AM

In Australia they use toilets with two buttons. One for high volume and one for low volume, not a bad idea.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on April 16 2008 7:23 AM

We have a low water volume toilet and it actually works better than the regular toilets. It was installed 18 years ago when we built the house, but I seem to remember it cost three times as much to buy. It is made by Kohler and since it works so well it is probably no longer available. It's the only low volume toilet I have seen than doesn't require 3 flushes to drain the cheese.

Posted by: Shellshadow on April 16 2008 1:17 PM

Hopefully they can also get the retailers of these toilets to drop the price. If you want to go green you will have to have at least $125.00 more per toilet!! We just put two of them into our house for the tune of $245.00 a piece. Where the hell is the insentive to do the right thing. We did it to help out our septic system. Everything that is good for the planet or us is over priced to the point of rediculous. I believe that the toilets that use more water should be higher priced!!! Fuel efficient cars should be lower than gas gusssslers. But NO! Of course not!! We keep hearing how we must do something NOW to help! Why then is everything good higher priced? STILL!!

Posted by: owl on April 16 2008 2:03 PM

"In Australia they use toilets with two buttons. One for high volume and one for low volume, not a bad idea."

They have those at the Delta Sun Peaks Resort as well. The flush buttons are fine on those .... the bowl design is, how should I put it .... the chits ... very much reminds me of the poorer part of European toilet design ....

;-)..

Posted by: lostfaith on April 16 2008 2:45 PM

Shellshadow
Lets think about that for a minute, things that are good for us and the planet are more expensive than they should be. Hmmmmmm.
A minute was to long to think about why that is.
Corporate greed, conflicts of interest in government, people with money.
Same old, same old.