Plumbing Standards Paper

8/3/2019 Plumbing Standards Paper

1/8

MARY ANN DICKINSON, CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 703, Sacramento, California 95814, email: [email protected]

LISA A. MADDAUS, CALIFORNIA URBAN WATER CONSERVATION COUNCIL455 Capitol Mall, Suite 703, Sacramento, California 95814, email: [email protected]

WILLIAM O. MADDAUS, MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT9 Via Cerrada, Alamo, California 94507, email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

In 2000, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and California Urban WaterConservation Council partnered to study the merits of the United States National PlumbingEfficiency Standards. The study develops information on the value of the national plumbingstandards, based on a nationwide survey of water supply utilities. Using base year 1999water production levels, the study found forecasted water production due to the nationalplumbing code reduced by 5 percent in 2010, climbing to 8 percent water savings by 2020.Average utility savings of US$26 per person extrapolated to the United States as a wholeamount to about US$7.5 billion in reduced infrastructure costs due to the national plumbingcode. Including energy benefits from hot water savings, the total dollar savings tocommunities is higher at US$35 billion in the United States. This paper highlights anexample methodology into the overall assessment of water and cost savings from waterconservation programs. This methodology, more fully presented in the original reportdocument, provides is particularly useful for water agencies quantifying benefits whenseeking to avoid acquiring new source water supply and/or defer building capital projects.

KEYWORDS

Plumbing Standards, Infrastructure Cost Savings, Water Use Efficiency, Water DemandManagement, Water Conservation, Water Demand Forecasting

INTRODUCTION

The AWWA Water Utility Council (WUC) requested that the Water Conservation Division

provide information on the merits of retaining the current provisions of the U.S. Energy PolicyAct of 1992. Specifically the Water Utility Council asked for a nationwide analysis including:

Amount of future water saved by the Energy Policy Act Amount of money saved by cost avoidance of capital expenditures, especially for

drinking water and wastewater facilities, to meet projected population growth Savings to taxpayers and local governments across the nation, not just in arid

states

This paper documents the value of continued implementation of the water efficient plumbingfixture standards in the Energy Policy Act through research funded by the AWWA Technical

and Education Council (TEC).

Benefits of the United States NationwidePlumbing Efficiency Standards


2/8

To perform the analysis data on water use, demographics, and planned investments in watersupply and treatment infrastructure from the surveys were entered into a database.Subsequently, a benefit cost model was used to estimate water savings and associated costsavings. The analysis identified the changes in water demand and required capitalinvestments in water production with and without the national plumbing efficiency standards.The analysis and results described below does not include savings to wastewater

infrastructure costs and community cost savings where sewer charges are billed on avolume basis, as this data was unavailable.

The report discussing the full details of the findings titled, Impact of the National PlumbingEfficiency Standards on Water Infrastructure Investments (California Urban WaterConservation Council (CUWCC, 2001)) serves as an example methodology for assessmentof water and cost savings from water conservation programs including implementation ofplumbing fixture retrofit programs. This methodology is particularly useful for utilitiesquantifying benefits when seeking to defer acquiring new source water supply and/or deferbuilding capital projects.

BACKGROUND

The AWWA sponsored the research to quantify the benefits of the water efficient plumbingfixture standards in the federal Energy Policy Act to water utilities and customers in bothwater and monetary savings.

Provisions of the 1992 Energy Policy ActThe federal Energy Policy Act was passed in 1992 and the water provisions of the Actconsolidated a patchwork of individual state regulations on water efficient fixtures. Byrequiring standard flow rates and flush volumes for manufacturing plumbing units, the Actcontrolled not only fixtures in new construction but also in the replacement market. Thespecific requirements for fixtures manufactured after January 1, 1994 are in Section 123 ofthe Energy Policy Act of 1992 and are summarized in Table 1 below. The US Energy policyact is available via the web site: http://www.eren.doe.gov/buildings/codes_standards/

Table 1 - Summary of Energy Policy Act Plumbing Efficiency Standards

Fixture Maximum Flow Rate or Flush VolumeFaucets 9.5 liters per minute (2.5 gallons per minute)Showerheads 9.5 liters per minute (2.5 gpm)Toilets 6.0 liters per flush

(1.6 gallons per flush (gpf))*Urinals 3.8 liters per flush (1.0 gpf)

*Blow out toilets limited to 3.5 gpf, standard for commercial toilets took effect

January 1, 1997.

Water Saving Potential From Efficient FixturesThe Residential End Uses of Water study by the American Water Works AssociationResearch Foundation (AWWARF, 1999) analyzed water use in 1200 homes in 12 study siteslocated across the United States. The study estimated that 1.6 gpf toilets reduced water use52 percent and water efficient showerheads 21 percent. Shown in Table 2 are estimates ofindoor residential end uses with and without conservation, showing the savings potential forefficient homes compared to older inefficient homes. Overall the conservation potential isestimated up to 32 percent, most of which is due to toilets and showerheads.


3/8

Table 2 - Residential Indoor End Uses of WaterWith and Without Conservation in Gallons per Capita per Day and Percent

End Use Without Conservation With Conservation Water Savings

Percent(%)

Gcd* Percent(%)

Gcd* Percent(%)

Gcd*

Toilets 27.7 20.1 19.3 9.6 52 10.5

Showers 17.3 12.6 20.1 10.0 21 2.6Faucets 15.3 11.1 21.7 10.8 2 0.3Baths 1.6 1.2 2.4 1.2 0 0Clothes Washers 20.9 15.1 21.3 10.6 30 4.5Dishwashers 1.3 1 2 1 0 0Other Domestic 2.1 1.5 3.1 1.5 0 0Leaks 13.8 10 10.1 5 50 5Total Indoor Use 100 72.6 100 49.7 32 22.9*Gcd gallons per capita per day

Study ApproachIn order to develop information on the value of the national plumbing standards, a nationwide

survey of water utilities was conducted. Data from the surveys was entered into a databaseand were analyzed using a benefit cost model to estimate water savings and associated costsavings. The analysis identified the changes in water demand and required capitalinvestments in water infrastructure with and without the national plumbing efficiencystandards. This type of analysis has been used by many individual water utilities to evaluateand help select a program of water conservation measures that is best suited to localconditions. This approach is based on utility responses that provided data on water use,demographics, and planned investments in water supply and treatment infrastructure.

SURVEY AND DATABASE

The nationwide survey of water supply utilities was designed with 20 questions to gather thetype of information needed to make estimates of:

The amount of water to be saved over the next twenty years including losses toalready achieved savings

Financial benefits from reduced water system operation and maintenance costs Financial benefits from deferred capital projects (supply and water treatment,) Savings to customers in terms of water and energy bill savings

Surveys were sent to 3,700 utilities located across the United States by the AWWA and 653utilities responded. Data from the surveys was entered into an MS Access database. Inorder to extract a representative sample of utilities across the county, the database wasqueried to determine representative scenarios. The scenarios were intended to representtypical utilities, while capturing what is believed to be the significant variables in determiningcost savings. The EPA Regions were used to represent geographic diversity whilemaintaining adequate sample size. The survey responses were also divided into threesystem size categories based on population served: (1) less than 10,000; (2) 10,000 to100,000; and (3) more than 100,000.

Shown in Figure 1 is the geographic distribution of the survey respondents by system sizeand EPA Regions. Figure 2 shows a map of the EPA Regions and Table 3 shows a listing ofEPA Regions and corresponding states. Note that most of the largest number ofrespondents with system size less than 10,000 is from EPA Region 5. For larger systems

most of the respondents were from Region 9 in the western United States.

Figure 1 Survey Response Geographic Distribution for Survey Respondents


4/8

12

34

56

78

910

>100,000

10,000-100,000


5/8

Table 3 Summary of EPA Regions & Corresponding States for Report Analysis

EPA Regional Analysis Categories States1/2 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, NewJersey, New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

3 Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West

Virginia, District of Columbia4/6 Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

5 Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,Wisconsin

7 Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska8/6 New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming9 Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Pacific Islands

and Tribal Nations subject to US law10 Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS OF WATER DEMAND REDUCTION ON UTILITIES

The following basic steps were used to estimate the benefits of retaining the nationalplumbing efficiency standards. The steps are illustrated in Figure 1, with the exception ofestimating the costs (since the plumbing efficiency standards costs have been absorbed andso benefit-cost ratios are not meaningful here). Baseline water use projections were developed withoutconservation. Employment (jobs) associated with each sample was estimated based on statistics

from the United States Bureau of Labor (www.bls.gov). Water use then was separated into indoor and outdoor components based on a

comparison of the lowest water use month with the average water demand inmillion gallons per day (MGD).

A Decision Support System (DSS) model was used to estimate the water savingsand benefits from water use reductions.

The baseline water use projections with conservation were developed includingthe water savings from the plumbing efficiency standards, as determined in theAWWARF Study. Projections were developed through the year 2030.

Benefits to the water utility are based on the sum of the present worth of capitaldeferrals and reduced operation and maintenance costs. The basic methodologyused is described in more detailed in the Impact study report (Maddaus, et. al.,2001) and the reference Impacts of Demand Reduction on Utilities (Bishop, et. al.,

1996) The operational cost savings (benefits) to the water utility were computed using the

costs of electricity and chemical per million liters or million gallons (MG) of treatedwater produced, as provided in the survey.

Benefits each year in the DSS forecast period (30 years) were determined as thesum of the present worth of the capital deferrals and the present worth of theoperational cost savings. Benefits were computed at a discount rate of 3%.

RESULTS

Analyses on the scenarios developed based on divisions by EPA Regions and system size

categories were performed after the database was completed. In order to extract arepresentative sample of utilities across the county, numerous queries were performed onthe database to determine representative scenarios based on available data. Some


6/8

respondents provided insufficient data to be included in the analysis, with 570 utilitiesproviding adequate data. The scenarios were intended to represent typical utilities, whilecapturing what is believed to be the significant variables in determining cost savings. Eachof the scenarios was modeled individually in the DSS model.

Results of Regional Analysis

Average forecasted water use reduction in 2010 is projected to be 5 percent, climbing to 8percent by 2020. Estimated reductions in projected daily water savings given expectedpopulation growth range is between 5.9 and 11.4 percent of total water production in 2020for all size categories. Average water savings are derived from the results of the AWWARFResidential End Use study. Water savings vary regionally (See Figure 6) and where there isa higher proportion of water used indoors the percentage of savings due to the plumbingefficiency standards will be higher. This is more likely to happen in areas where outdoorwater use is low, such as on the east coast. For example, the savings for Regions 1-3ranged between 6.7 to 11.4 percent, whereas in Region 9 the range was from 6.0 to 8.4percent.

Cost savings on a per person basis were:

US$14 to US$34 and average of US$26 to water utilities US$91 to US$185 and average of US$127 to communities

Energy savings significantly improve the cost savings to the community and are the reasonfor the higher value than from the utility perspective.

Extrapolation Of Results To The Nation As A WholeFor the United States with population of 276,000,000 people, using a per capita use of 605.7liters (160 gallons) per person per day, the 2020 water savings are 48.5 liters (12.8 gallons)

per person per day or 13 trillion liters (3.5 billion gallons) per day of water saved due to thenational plumbing code.

Average utility savings of US$26 per person extrapolated to the United States as a wholeamount to about US$7.5 billion in reduced infrastructure costs due to the national plumbingcode. Including energy benefits, the total dollar savings to communities is higher at US$35billion in the United States.

The latter figure is more representative of the very significant value of the plumbing efficiencystandards to the nation. Of course this figure does not include savings to wastewaterinfrastructure costs.


7/8

Figure 6 Water Savings by EPA Region and System Size

Figure 7 Utility Monetary Savings by EPA Region and System Size

CONCLUSIONS

National Standards Save WaterResearch has shown that water efficient toilets and water efficient showerheads save water.

Through use of a national survey and subsequent calculations it has been shown thatretaining the national plumbing efficiency standards will reduce water production by about 8percent by the year 2020, or 1.3 trillion liters (3.5 billion gallons) per day.

1&23

4&65

76&8

910

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

Utility

Savings

perPer

EPA Region

100,000

1&23

4&65

76&8

910

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

Utility

Savings

perPer

EPA Region

100,000


8/8

National Standards Will Save MoneyThe analysis conducted in this project has shown that, due to reduced operation andmaintenance costs and deferred and downsized capital projects, utilities will save money byretaining the national standards. Average utility savings of US$26 per person extrapolatedto the United States as a whole amount to about US$7.5 billion in reduced infrastructure

costs due to the national plumbing code. Including energy benefits, the total dollar savingsto communities is higher at US$35 billion in the United States.

Water Infrastructure Cost Savings Likely To Be Higher Than Reported HereBased on the response to the survey it was clear to the researchers that the potential capitalsavings are underreported. Utilities that were shown to be growing and said they neededadditional supply and treatment, sometimes did not report any capital projects or onlyreported projects to accommodate growth for the next few years. Thus the value ofinfrastructure savings is likely to be higher than reported here.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Additional Enhancements To Water Utility Data BasesBased on the researchers experience with questioning utilities about their water use andcapital facility needs some recommendations can be made. Monthly water consumption data by customer class is only available in a small

portion of utilities. Such data is very useful in projecting water demands. Planned long-range capital facility planning should be improved. Lack of long-

range plans makes assessing whether demand reduction options are cost-effectivemore difficult and may not allow for adequate time for planning and design ofcontroversial projects.

The benefit-cost model used in this project could also be used to incorporatebenefits from the plumbing standards from wastewater savings for comparable andmore comprehensive results but not performed under the scope of this project.

REFERENCES

Bishop, Daniel and Weber, Jack, (1996) Impacts of Demand Reduction on Water Utilities,the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Mayer, Peter, et. al., (1999) Residential End Uses of Water, American Water WorksAssociation Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Maddaus, Lisa, Dickinson, Mary Ann, and Maddaus, William, (2001) Impact ofNationalPlumbing Efficiency Standards on Water Infrastructure Investments, California UrbanWater Conservation Council (CUWCC), Sacramento, California, USA. (www.cuwcc.org)

Water Industry Database, (1991) American Water Works Association, Denver Colorado,USA.

Contact Name: William O. Maddaus, Maddaus Water ManagementTelephone: 001 (925) 820 1784Facsimile: 001 (925) 820 2675Email: [email protected]

Plumbing Standards Paper

Documents

Transcript of Plumbing Standards Paper