BAT and_BNAT - Susproc

DEVELOPING AN EVIDENCE BASE ON
FLUSHING TOILETS AND URINALS
Annex 5
Task 5: Best Available Technology
(BAT) and Best Not Yet Available
Technology (BNAT)
Developing an Evidence Base on
Flushing Toilets and Urinals
Annex 5
Task 5: Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best
Not Yet Available Technology (BNAT)
Final Report
Authors:
Simon Gandy (AEA)
Chris Nuttall (AEA)
Phil Dolley (AEA)
Reviewers:
Aurélien Genty (IPTS)
October 2012
Table of contents
1
Introduction................................................................................................................... 5
2
General Trends and Drivers......................................................................................... 6
3
Best Available Technology (BAT) ............................................................................... 8
3.1 BAT Toilets........................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1
Traditional Flushing Toilets .......................................................................... 8
3.1.2
Squat Flushing Toilets................................................................................ 10
3.1.3
Flush Control Mechanisms......................................................................... 10
3.1.4
Flush Mechanism Market Share ................................................................ 13
3.2 BAT Urinals ........................................................................................................ 14
3.2.1
Flushing Single Urinal ................................................................................ 14
3.2.2
Flushing Trough Urinal............................................................................... 15
3.2.3
Urinal Flush Control Mechanisms .............................................................. 16
3.2.4
Flush-free Urinals....................................................................................... 19
3.3 Other Innovations and Experience from Outside Europe................................... 20
3.3.1
Experience from Outside Europe ............................................................... 20
3.3.2
Other Interventions – Grey Water Use....................................................... 20
3.4 Barriers............................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Conclusions for BAT........................................................................................... 23
4
Best Not Yet Available Technology (BNAT) ............................................................. 25
4.1 BNAT.................................................................................................................. 25
4.2 Alternative Technologies .................................................................................... 26
5
Conclusions and Implications for Criteria Development........................................ 27
2
Table of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Dual-Flush Flow Rate BAT for Toilets........................................................................... 11
Table 2: Industry-Estimated Share of Toilet Stock in EU27 ............................................................................ 13
Table 3: AEA Estimation of Share of Toilet Sales in EU27 ............................................................................. 14
Table 4: Stakeholder Estimation of Share of Urinal Market in EU27 .............................................................. 15
Table 5: Possible Savings from Urinal Flush Controls .................................................................................... 17
Table 6: Current BAT Water Usage Levels for Toilets and Urinals................................................................. 23
3
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Examples of a 4.5-litre and 4-litre single flush toilets ....................................................................... 10
Figure 2: Examples of a 4/2 litre and a 3.5/2 litre dual-flush toilet .................................................................. 11
Figure 3: Caroma Cube3 Ultra Urinal – with 0.5-litre flush .............................................................................. 15
Figure 4: Sensor urinal flush control delivering a flush volume of 0.5 litres/flush............................................ 17
Figure 5: Example of a flush timer control for urinals ...................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Roca W+W Integrated toilet and washbasin .................................................................................... 21
Figure 7: Examples of a combined sink and urinal.......................................................................................... 21
4
1 Introduction
The Joint Research Centre's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS), with
support from AEA, has conducted a study to develop a joint evidence base and related product
policy measures in the area of Toilets and Urinals water using products for the European
Commission's Directorate General for the Environment.
Further details regarding the project
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/toilets/
are
available
through
the
following
website:
This report supports study Task 5, and considers Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Not
Yet Available Technology (BNAT) for toilets and urinals. The term “Best” is taken to mean the most
effective in achieving a high level of environmental performance of the product. “Available”
technology is taken to mean that developed on a scale that allows implementation for the product,
under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and
benefits. This applies whether or not the technology is used or produced inside the EU Member
States, so long as it is reasonably accessible to the product manufacturer. On the other hand, “Not
yet” available technology is taken to mean that not yet developed on a scale that allows
implementation for the relevant product, but that is subject to research and development.
The environmental assessment (See Task 4 Report) indicated that water usage during the use
phase is a key impact for toilets and urinals. Therefore, opportunities for water saving have been
the focus of the technologies identified and described in this report.
In order to assess BAT and BNAT, input from stakeholders was requested through the second
questionnaire. Further direct correspondence was undertaken with stakeholders as necessary and
their input, together with information received in response to the questionnaire, has been included
in this report where appropriate.
When developing ecolabel criteria and GPP specifications, it is important to understand the
technology available on the market in its various forms throughout the EU for the product group
(i.e. toilets and urinals) and any potential barriers to its uptake. This understanding is needed so
that criteria can be set at a level to differentiate the top performing products, typically the top 1020% of the market. It will also ensure the criteria do not become obsolete in a short space of time
as a result of any significant technological developments that would potentially cause a shift in
product standards available on the market.
The information and understanding provided by this report will contribute to the criteria
development process, by identifying trends in the technology for toilets and urinals, and provide
information on forthcoming developments, where appropriate, to help inform the level at which
criteria such as flush volume should be set.
Water saving functions for toilets and urinals focus on the different flushing mechanisms e.g.
single/dual flush for toilets, different control mechanisms for urinals (sensors, timers, etc), the
volume of water used (low flush and flush-free) and other features such as delayed inlet valves, the
use of grey water and variable flush mechanisms. The key drivers behind these developments are
discussed in Section 3.
Following an overview of general trends and drivers, the report provides an overview of BAT,
looking at the different systems and controls in turn, then considering other factors such as
drainage. This is followed by a discussion of possible BNAT technologies, leading to conclusions
about their implications for setting ecolabel criteria and GPP specifications.
5
2 General Trends and Drivers
Over the last 10-15 years, there has been an increasing focus on water efficiency across different
industry sectors and through different uses. This includes the use of water through toilets and
urinals use, both from a product perspective and the behaviour of end users. This increased focus
on water efficiency in general is a result of a number of key consumer and business drivers:
+
The cost of supplying water is increasing and these costs are passed onto consumers in the
form of higher water bills. In response to this, consumers and businesses are keen to identify
and implement measures that enable them to reduce their water bills.
+
Increased product information is being provided through schemes such at the Water
Technology List,1 product labelling schemes and national ecolabels (e.g. Nordic Swan)
increasing awareness and consumer/business understanding of the differences in products.
+
A time of environmental awareness amongst consumers and increasing demand for more
sustainable products.2
+
Businesses are increasingly recognising the risk posed by water scarcity to their operations,
especially those that utilise large volumes or where water is integral to or the limiting factor in
their processes.3 More sustainable water use will help reduce overall water consumption and
minimise exposure to such risks.
+
Businesses are increasingly aware of their environmental impacts and profile and the
commercial benefits from improved reputation through increased Corporate Social
Responsibility.4
+
Regulation and Government policy, such as the Code for Sustainable Homes5 and the Building
Regulations in the UK,6 encourages greater water (and wider environmental) efficiency. In
some countries regulations are implemented at a regional level; for example in Spain, the City
Council of Madrid introduced the Ordenanza de Gestion y Uso Eficiente del Agua in 2006. This
sets out mandatory regulations for a number of water using products, including WCs.7 A similar
regional approach is also used in Italy.7
+
Identification of business opportunities by front runners, for example in the development of
particular technologies, can give them a competitive advantage.8
In addition to water efficiency, other drivers will also influence the innovation and design of toilet
and urinal products:
+
Consumers have increasingly busy lifestyles and like products that are easy to install and use,
offering high levels of convenience.
+
Consumers have expectations of product performance, for example adequate flushing to clear
waste and prevent blockages, which, if not met, will result in them looking at alternative
products that meet their requirements.
1
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.l1=1079068363&r.lc=en&r.l2=1082899409&topicId=10
84216413&furlname=wtl&furlparam=wtl&ref=http%3A//etl.decc.gov.uk/&domain=www.businesslink.gov.uk
2
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sust_homes.pdf
3
http://knowledge.insead.edu/social-innovation-water-scarcity-100519.cfm
4
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1075408491&type=RESOURCES
5
http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/sustainability/codesustainablehomes/
6
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/partg2009divisionalletter
7
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/pdf/Water%20efficiency%20standards_Study2009.pdf
8
http://www.savewatersavemoney.co.uk/section/kitchen-dishwashers
6
+
User behaviour is an important aspect of improving water efficiency of toilets and urinals. The
products need to be installed correctly, used in the correct way and for their intended design
purpose to operate at their optimum. It is also important that maintenance is undertaken as
specified by the manufacturers to ensure the products continue to operate at their optimum.
+
Health and safety issues need to be considered, in particular hygiene to ensure the end user is
not at risk when using or cleaning/maintaining the product.
Financial incentives for the purchase of water saving products do not appear to be common across
Europe. The main example relating specifically to urinals and WCs is the enhanced capital
allowance scheme in the UK.9 This enables businesses to claim tax reductions on technologies
and products that encourage sustainable water use. Other examples of financial incentives related
to water use identified during this research do not relate directly to this product group, but water
use generally. For example, in France tax credits are available for rainwater harvesting, as part of
a scheme designed to promote energy conservation in the home.10
These drivers have resulted in a number of product innovations over the years in order to improve
water efficiency across a wide range of products and will continue to drive future innovation. This
includes the technologies specific to toilets and urinals outlined in Section 3.
9
http://etl.decc.gov.uk/
http://www.french-property.com/guides/france/building/renovation/energy-conservation/
10
7
3 Best Available Technology (BAT)
This section of the report discusses what might represent the Best Available Technology (BAT) for
toilets and urinals. As part of the second questionnaire, stakeholders were requested to provide
information regarding their best performing products, to understand what level of performance in
terms of water use is currently available on the market. Information was requested regarding the
following list of toilets, which is consistent with the products assessed as part of the base case
analysis:
+
traditional flushing toilets;
+
flushing squat toilets;
+
flushing single urinals;
+
flushing trough urinals; and
+
flush-free urinals.
The following sections discuss BAT for toilets and then urinals, before bringing in other innovations
and experience outside Europe, considering possible barriers and drawing conclusions.
3.1 BAT Toilets
3.1.1 Traditional Flushing Toilets
Typical Current Technology
Traditional flushing toilets come in two sections: a WC pan, consisting of a water-filled bowl into
which the excrement falls before being removed by the flushing of water; and the cistern, which is
used to store and discharge water for the flushing process. The various parts of a toilet are
generally sufficiently robust and hard wearing that, during the product’s lifetime, it is quite possible
that no parts will need replacing. Evidence gathered during this project confirms that the
predominant reason for replacing toilets is not product failure but “fashion” – a desire for a new
product, perhaps concurrent with a bathroom redecoration.
The general shape, design and materials of cisterns and pans have evolved relatively slowly, with
the most significant changes being an increase in plastic cisterns, which are frequently concealed
from normal view, and changes in the cistern size and flush mechanism. Despite this, evidence
(discussed in more detail below) suggests that the majority of toilets currently in the EU are singleflush toilets with a cistern capacity of six litres or more.
Current BAT for Traditional Flushing Toilets
Stakeholders indicated that they have reached the point where, using standard single-flush
technologies, they have reduced flush volumes to the lowest possible levels, to the extent that
reducing flush volumes any further will require innovation.
Clarifications on a number of the responses to the second questionnaire were sought at the first
stakeholder meeting in October 2011 with regards BAT and BNAT. The key points for clarification
were:
+
Confirm the minimum flow rates for the different toilet types
+
Seek additional information regarding product payback
+
Enquire whether European flush volumes are comparable with international flush volumes
+
Understand the reasons for the non-uniform standards across Europe/Internationally
8
Based on the information received from stakeholders via the study questionnaire, the first Ad-Hoc
Working Group (AHWG) meeting and additional research, the lowest single-flush volume for a
traditional flushing toilet is 4 litres per flush. This applies to products that connect to a
conventional drainage system.
Further information regarding the scope of this product group is included in the Task 2/3 study
report available from the project website.11 For some products, different values were provided by
different stakeholders; these, together with additional observations and product examples, are
highlighted and discussed below.
Additional information regarding the payback of water-efficient products was not provided during
the stakeholder meeting or received following the meeting. Further research has identified limited
information on product payback, and has been included in this report where identified.
Product Examples
Examples are provided below of models that achieve (or nearly achieve) the lowest flush rates
indicated by stakeholders. In addition, it is worth highlighting a number of other features used in
toilets currently available on the market and that can be used to control water use through these
products. This section also includes relevant observations and discussions in light of stakeholder
feedback.
Limited information has been provided concerning single-flush toilets. However, evidence shows
that 4 litres per flush is the best available, an example being the ES4 toilet.12 The retailer claims
that this model can offer water savings of at least 25% through the low flush rate and use of a
delayed action inlet valve (see also Section 3.1.3), with financial payback in as little as 2-4 years
where water is metered.13
Although a 4-litre single-flush toilet has been identified as BAT, many stakeholders suggest that
4.5 litres per flush is the minimum. This was a reflection on the need to ensure the waste is cleared
and blockages prevented, due to the waste water drainage systems available in different parts of
Europe (See Section 3.4 for further information and discussion regarding this), and also on the
market penetration of these top performing products across Europe. Market share is discussed in
more detail in Section 3.1.4 below.
Examples of a 4.5- and a 4-litre toilet are shown in Figure 1. These flush volumes are approaching
the limit of what is technically feasible, and may be considered beyond BAT in some countries, due
to the waste water systems to which the toilet is connected, which require a higher volume of water
to avoid blockages (see Section 3.4).
11
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/toilets/stakeholders.html
http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/page--water-saving-wcs.html
13
http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/page--water-saving-toilets.html
12
9
Figure 1: Examples of a 4.5-litre and 4-litre single flush toilets14
3.1.2 Squat Flushing Toilets
Limited information has been provided that specifically applies to squat toilets, with the suggestion
from some stakeholders that that they are niche products often used in particular cultural
circumstances. The responses received suggested a flush volume of 6 litres per flush as the best
available technology for a single- or full-flush, and 3 litres per flush for a part-flush, where available.
Further discussions with stakeholders indicated that higher flush volumes are required for these
types of toilets compared to other conventional designs, to ensure the floor pan is cleared.
3.1.3 Flush Control Mechanisms
Flush control mechanisms can be fitted to both traditional and squat flushing toilets. In addition to
toilets with low flush rates, retrofit devices are available to lower the flush rate of toilets; these
include cistern displacement devices and conversion kits that allow a single-flush toilet to be
converted to a dual or even variable flushing toilet. The savings these devices offer will depend on
the starting flow rate. It will also be important for the end user to ensure these are actually required,
for example to ensure they are not mistakenly fitted to a low flush toilet, as performance will be
affected. Additional information on these types of retrofit products is provided by various advisory
bodies, including Waterwise in the UK.15
Dual Flush Mechanisms
Over the past ten years or so, the market has seen a shift towards dual flush systems, with a small
and large flush capacity respectively for liquid and solid waste. Dual flush, push button suites with
flush volumes of 6/4 litres are the most common, but the consumer and professional can now find
flushes of 6/3 litres, 5/3 litres, 4.5/3 litres and 4/2.6 litres; the smallest flush volumes we have
identified are 3.5/2 litres.16
14
4.5-litre flush toilet (on left) from Ideal Standard: http://www.idealspec.co.uk/catalogue/bluebook/wcs/closecoupled/sandringham-lever-close-coupled-wc-suite_p39.html, and 4-litre flush toilet (on right) from Twyford:
http://www.ribaproductselector.com/Docs/0/18510/external/COL863123.pdf
15
16
http://www.waterwise.org.uk/reducing_water_wastage_in_the_uk/house_and_garden/toilet_flushing.html
http://www.bathroom-association.org/pdf/01-2010trends.pdf
10
Table 1: Summary of Dual-Flush Flow Rate BAT for Toilets
Type of Toilet Dual Flush Volumes (Long/Short Litres per Flush)
Traditional Toilet
Squat Toilet
3.5 / 2
6/3
Figure 2 shows an example from Ifö of a 4/2 litre dual-flush toilet (a 6/3 litre option is also available)
that costs approximately 185 Euros; other models at different prices are also available. This is
comparable with the average of 245 Euros identified in the Task 2 Economic and Market Analysis.
The second toilet is a 3.5/2 litre dual flush from Villeroy & Boch.
Figure 2: Examples of a 4/2 litre and a 3.5/2 litre dual-flush toilet17
The manufacturer’s brochure/information does not provide any information or scenarios regarding
water saving potential or an indication of cost savings. However, possible water savings can be
estimated using data from the Task 4 Base Case Assessment work. A typical dual-flush toilet uses
6/4 litres per flush, and is thought to be used 7.75 times a day. It is also assumed the short flush is
used three times for every one long flush.
Applying these data, the BAT toilet uses { 7.75 x [ (3x4 + 6)/4 – (3x2 + 4)/4 ] } = 15.5 litres of water
less each day than the base case, which is equivalent to a 36% reduction, or 5.6 m3 per year.
The 4/2 litre dual-flush toilet is mainly available in Scandinavia, we believe because of their
drainage systems and national requirements (see more below). It is also available on the UK
market, but the 4/2.6 dual-flush toilets are generally the best widely available format in the UK. The
2.6 flush volume for the part flush reflects the maximum allowed in proportion to the full-flush (twothirds) in the UK. The BMA’s water labelling scheme indicates that there are 65 WC suites
17
4/2 litre dual flush toilet (on left) from Ifö:
http://www.ifosanitar.com/?id=290&ParentNodeID=9665&ProductGroupID=15258&ProductID=25382
3.5/2 litre dual flush toilet (on right) from Villeroy & Boch: http://www.villeroyboch.com/en/gb/home/bathroom-and-wellness/new-products-ish2011/omnia-architectura/bathroomceramics.html
11
available that meet these standards.18 A number of examples from various manufacturers can be
viewed through the BMA’s website.19
Cistern Displacement Devices
Cistern displacement devices are designed to be inserted into the cistern to reduce its effective
capacity, simply by displacing water. A range of devices are available in the EU, and some water
companies are willing to provide them to households free of charge (e.g. Veolia). Depending on
the particulars of the device and cistern involved, water savings per flush are typically in the range
of 1-3 litres. These devices are a simple but effective means of reducing flush volumes, and can
bring the effective flush volume down to the sort of BAT levels mentioned above.
Delayed Inlet Valves
When a toilet without a delayed inlet valve is flushed, the flush volume may be higher than the
figure at which the toilet is rated, as water enters the cistern as the toilet is flushing, and some of
this can be used. This can result in slightly higher actual flush volumes, for example 6.5 litres
instead of 6 litres.20
To prevent this, delayed action inlet valves can be used, and are increasingly found on products.
These valves will prevent the cistern from refilling until the flush is complete; therefore ensuring the
amount of water used for flushing is as stated.
Further discussions with stakeholders indicate that currently there are no defined standards for
these types of valves e.g. the length of the delay. This makes it difficult to verify the performance of
products and compare different models on a like for like basis. Stakeholders also indicate that,
compared to reducing the overall flush volume from 6 litres to 4 litres for example, these valves will
have a relatively limited impact on water use. They indicate that typically only an additional 0.1 to
0.5 litres at most will be used whilst the cistern is refilling before the flush completes, if a delayed
inlet valve is not used.
One stakeholder suggested that they expected the use of delayed action inlet valves in cisterns to
become more popular as education for water saving in the marketplace becomes more
widespread.
Interruptible / Variable Flush Products
Feedback from stakeholders indicates that products and technologies are available that allow a
variable flush as opposed to a fixed volume flush, even if it is at a low volume, though it is also
thought that their combined market share is small and diminishing. Both ANQIP (Portugal) and the
Water Efficiency Label (WELL) from the European Valve Manufacturers Association mention
interruptible flush devices. The German Blue Angel scheme has a specific Environmental Label
award for “Water-Saving Flush Boxes” (RAL-UZ 32).21 At the time of research, 22 products were
cited as having received the award, from the following companies: Conmetall GmbH (1 product);
Geberit Vertriebs GmbH (7 products); Sanitärtechnik Eisenberg GmbH (8 products); and WERIT
Sanitär-Kunststofftechnik GmbH & Co.KG (6 products). One example of such a cistern (SANIT
flushing cistern 937) is depicted on the SANIT website.22
Research suggests that the majority of interruptible and variable flush devices are designed to fit to
cisterns that use siphon mechanisms, and act by breaking the partial vacuum that drives the
siphon operation. Internet research revealed companies in this category including Mecon (the
18
Identified from the BMAs website – Accessed 6th December 2011
http://www.bathroom-association.org/
20
http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/page--water-saving-toilets.html
21
http://www.blauer-engel.de/en/products_brands/search_products/produkttyp.php?id=110
22
http://www.sanit.com/service/spare-parts/wcaccessories.html?no_cache=1&cid=237&did=277&sechash=d209a72c
19
12
Mecon Water Saver),23 the ecoBETA® siphon,24 Peterton (dual flush and Variflush conversion
kits),25 PHS Washrooms’ Flush-wiser®,26 and the Dudley Turbo 88 and Duoflush.27
Another example of such a product, provided in response to the second questionnaire, is the
Interflush, which is produced in the UK.28 The product works by retro-fitting an air valve on top of
the siphon. When flushed, the handle is held down until the pan is cleared; at this point, the user
releases the handle and the flushing ceases. The manufacturer’s information states that this can
save 47% of the flushing water used.29 A second product, the Siphon Saver is also available; this is
a full siphon and operates on the same principles as the Interflush product.30 By using a siphon
mechanism, the devices also avoid any risk of valve leakage.
In contrast, there seems to be few examples of interruptible flush products that work on non-siphon
systems, though one example was found from Wirquin.31
3.1.4 Flush Mechanism Market Share
Getting firm data on the relative market shares of these different technologies is difficult. In July
2011, VHK published a “Study on Amended Working Plan under the Ecodesign Directive”,32 which
includes (Table 95) estimates of the share of the toilets market stock between different flush
regimes, from 2000 to 2030, together with a second set of figures, described as the “Improvement
Scenario”. It is not clear to which toilets these flush mechanisms apply, but we can probably safely
assume that it is only for the traditional flushing toilets.
Further to this, stakeholder feedback following the first AHWG meeting for this project included a
detailed submission from a trade association representing several major manufacturers. They
provided a modified version of the VHK table, reproduced in Table 2.
Table 2: Industry-Estimated Share of Toilet Stock in EU27
Toilet design
l/flush (*)
2000
2005
2010
2015
12.5-l flush
12.5
30%
20%
5%
3%
7.5-l to 9-l flush
8
40%
28%
15%
6-l flush
6
25%
35%
6/3-l dual flush
3.6
5%
5/3-l dual flush
4/2.5-l dual flush
2020
2025
2030
10%
5%
2%
50%
44%
35%
25%
24%
15%
27%
40%
56%
68%
70%
3.4
1%
2%
2%
3%
4%
4%
2.8
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
(*) Average flush for dual flushes calculated on the basis of one long flush for every four short flushes
The data indicates that 50% of the EU27 toilet stock in 2010 was six-litre single-flush toilets, with
another 20% larger cisterns and the remainder a combination of dual-flush toilets, dominated by
the 6/3-litre dual-flush.
23
http://www.meconwml.com/info.html
http://www.ecobeta.com/products/Eco_Siphon_Oct08.pdf
25
http://www.peterton.co.uk/index.html
26
http://www.phs.co.uk/washrooms/water-services/flush-wiser-wc
27
http://www.thomasdudley.co.uk/turbo88.asp
28
http://www.interflush.co.uk/index.html
29
http://www.interflush.co.uk/brochure.pdf
30
http://www.interflush.co.uk/PDFs/Saversiphon.pdf
31
http://www.wirquin.com/fiches%20pdts%20gb/meca/interruptable%20flush.pdf
32
http://www.ecodesign-wp2.eu/downloads/2011-0714_Ecodesign%20Working%20Plan%20Background%20study%20Draft%20task%201-2-3.pdf
24
13
It is also possible, using other information from the VHK report and making some simple
assumptions about product lifetime, to infer a likely sales split that will lead to the above market
share figures. Results of that analysis are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: AEA Estimation of Share of Toilet Sales in EU27
Toilet design
l/flush (*)
12.5-l flush
12.5
7.5-l to 9-l flush
8
6-l flush
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
6
60%
55%
25%
16%
12%
8%
6/3-l dual flush
3.6
38%
43%
73%
81%
85%
88%
5/3-l dual flush
3.4
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
4/2.5-l dual flush
2.8
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
1%
(*) Average flush for dual flushes calculated on the basis of one long flush for every four short flushes
Further broad corroboration of the figures in these tables was provided by correspondence from
Schell GmbH, estimating that household figures for 6/3-l dual flush in 2015 and 2030 might be 5560% and nearly 100% respectively for new homes, with non-residential figures of 40% and 60%.
The obvious point of interest in these figures is that the industry expects the 6/3-litre dual-flush
system to become the dominant market player, while the only marginally smaller 5/3-litre dual-flush
(and other more efficient models) never sees as much as 5% of the market.
These figures seem to make it very clear that any Ecolabel flush volume criteria
must be smaller than the 6/3-litre dual-flush, as this is naturally destined to have
too high a share of the market.
3.2 BAT Urinals
3.2.1 Flushing Single Urinal
Like their toilet equivalents, flushing single urinals typically come in two sections: the urinal bowl
itself and the cistern that feeds it with water. The bowl design is optimised to maximise urine
capture and the effective distribution of flushing water, which can be controlled by a range of
systems (see Urinal Flush Control Mechanisms below).
As with toilets, urinals are generally sufficiently robust and hard wearing that the predominant
reason for replacing urinals is not product failure but fashion.
As mentioned in the Tasks 2&3 Report,33 based on the feedback gathered from the project
stakeholders through the first questionnaire, around 80% of all urinals within the EU27 were
estimated to be single urinals (while around 10% were estimate to be stall urinals, a further 5%
slab urinals and 5% for flush-free urinals).
Information on urinal market share is not readily available, but one manufacturing stakeholder
estimated the following figures:
33
Available here: http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/toilets/docs/Tasks2&3_Report_Draft_oct11.pdf (p50)
14
Table 4: Stakeholder Estimation of Share of Urinal Market in EU27
Urinal Flush
2010
2015
4.0 litres
14%
10%
2.0 litres
65%
50%
1.0 litres
20%
35%
0.5 litres
1%
5%
As can be seen from the above table, the current market share of 0.5-litre flushing urinals is small,
with few examples on the market, but one such example is the Caroma Cube3 Ultra Urinal (see
Figure 3).
Figure 3: Caroma Cube3 Ultra Urinal – with 0.5-litre flush
3.2.2 Flushing Trough Urinal
Flushing trough urinals also come in two sections: the steel trough itself and the cistern that feeds
it with water. The trough is designed to allow multiple users at once, with urine being directed by
gravity to a single draining point, which can be at one end or in the middle, depending on the
particular urinal. Once again, the feed of flushing water can be controlled by a range of systems
(see Urinal Flush Control Mechanisms below).
Although arguably less robust than ceramic toilets and urinals, steel trough urinals are still
sufficiently robust and hard wearing that they are generally replaced as a result of fashion rather
than necessity.
As previously mentioned, the Tasks 2&3 Report34 estimates that around 5% of all urinals within the
EU27 are slab urinals, of which the trough urinal is one example. However, beyond this, limited
information has been provided in relation to flushing trough urinals. Discussions with stakeholders
suggest these are mainly used in the UK. Flow rate is not always the main concern, as many
operate on an automatic fill cistern, which needs to meet certain requirements in the UK. From the
34
Available here: http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/toilets/docs/Tasks2&3_Report_Draft_oct11.pdf (p50)
15
feedback received, the indication is that 1 litre per place is typically the best available flush volume
for these types of urinals.
3.2.3 Urinal Flush Control Mechanisms
The flush on urinals can typically be controlled through a number of different means, discussed in
turn below:
+
motion sensors, such as Passive InfraRed (PIR) sensors;
+
hydraulic valves; and
+
timers.
The Tasks 2&3 Report35 provides the following information about the relative market share of
different control systems:
+
53% of single urinals are sensor operated
+
35% of stall urinals are sensor operated
+
98% of slab urinals are sensor operated
+
Flush-free urinals do not require a flushing mechanism but will have a maintenance schedule
flush.
Feedback from stakeholders indicates that 0.5 litres per flush is the best available technology
for non-siphonic flushing urinals, and has also been reported as the limit where urine stones
may start to appear in drainage systems, which could result in blockages. The choice of control
mechanism will depend on the specific installation circumstances, such as use patterns and the
preferences of the end user. For siphonic urinals, stakeholders indicate that the limit is 1 litre per
flush.
Motion Sensors
Details of the example provided by the stakeholders to demonstrate a performance of 0.5 litres per
flush are shown in Figure 4. This is an example of an infrared sensor flush control system. This
example does not require a cistern, with water supplied direct from the mains water supply.
35
Available here: http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/toilets/docs/Tasks2&3_Report_Draft_oct11.pdf (p50)
16
Figure 4: Sensor urinal flush control delivering a flush volume of 0.5 litres/flush36
The manufacturer’s information relating to this product indicates that water and financial savings
can be made by using this type of flush control, as shown in Table 5 below. This shows the
potential savings available by using such a flush control by comparing three scenarios. The
scenarios are controlled flush volumes of 7.5 litres and 10 litres per hour and an uncontrolled flush
urinal. The controlled flush volumes mean that flushing is not undertaken when the urinals are not
in use, reducing the number of hours and days that flushing will occur. The savings will clearly
depend on the specific circumstances of the installation and what it is compared against, but the
example of this infrared sensor clearly shows the potential saving from the use of a urinal control.
Table 5: Possible Savings from Urinal Flush Controls
Uncontrolled
Direct Flush 10
Urinal
litres per hour
Direct Flush 7.5
litres per hour
Litres per flush
4.5
Flushes per hour
4
20
15
Hours per day
24
12
12
Days per year
365
260
260
Water usage per year (litres)
157,680
Water saving per year (litres)
3
0
0.5
0.5
31,200
23,400
126,480
134,280
Water costs per m (€)
2.72
2.72
2.72
Annual water costs (€)
428.89
84.86
63.65
0
344.01
Annual water cost saving (€)
365.24
37
Note: Financial costs and savings converted from £ to Euros using Exchange Rate of 1 GBP = 1.1662 EUR. Financial savings are
based on assumptions made by the manufacturer, which are not available in the literature.
Other stakeholders suggested one litre as BAT. Again, this difference may be due to different
markets across Europe, but no further data or information has been identified following the first
stakeholder meeting, to better understand the position within the market across Europe.
36
http://www.cistermiser.co.uk/WebResources/Documents/ProductBrochures/Direct_Flush_Product_Brochure.pdf
37
From http://www.xe.com/ Accessed 6th December 2011
17
The maximum number of flushes within a given time period e.g. per hour can sometimes be
programmed to reflect expected use. The flushes will only be initiated by the presence of a user
but the number of flushes per hour will be limited to ensure the system does not try to flush
continuously during periods of heavy use.
Hydraulic Valves
The second type of urinal flush control is the hydraulic valve. Hydraulic valves operate in response
to changes in the pressure, for example in response to somebody washing their hands. This will
initiate a flush, the volume of which can be set by the end user and is typically between 0.5 and 1.0
litre.38 Hydraulic values are available for different types of pressure systems.
Timers
The third type of urinal control is timer controls. These should only generally be used where
flushing at regular intervals is required.39 This may be in response to a regular use pattern that is
identified, or flushing on a timed basis for urinals that have been converted to be used as low flow
urinals by the use of an appropriately designed insert for the trap.40 An example of a timer control
is shown in Figure 5. This example allows the flush interval to be set between 5 and 75 minutes, at
5 minute increments.
Figure 5: Example of a flush timer control for urinals41
It is common for urinal controls to have a hygiene flush mechanism, which will be initiated if a flush
has not been activated by a user within a given time period.
Given the different devices and settings that can be changed by the end user, for example flush
volume or timings, it is important for flushing urinals that clear information is provided to the
installer/end user and that the end user has a clear indication of the user profile they anticipate, in
order to minimise water use whilst maintaining an effectively operating system. The sensitivity of
the systems should also be considered to prevent unnecessary flushing, for example the proximity
and length of time a user needs to be in front of a PIR device, or the sensitivity of the pressure
change for flushing to be initiated for hydraulic valves.
The UK’s Water Technology List criteria for urinal flushing controls take into account some of these
other aspects.42 For example, the criteria require presence detectors to only flush after use, and be
designed with a range of less than one metre and bodies stationary for at least ten seconds to be
registered as a use and result in a flush. The criteria also specify controls must have a hygiene
flush initiated if the facilities have not been used after 12 hours.
38
http://www.cistermiser.co.uk/WebResources/Documents/ProductBrochures/Hydraulic_Valve_Product_Bro
chure.pdf
39
http://www.gentworks.co.uk/timer-urinal-flush-controllers/
40
http://www.waterlessurinals.co.uk/low-flushing-method/
41
http://www.gentworks.co.uk/gentworks-flush-timer.html
42
http://wtl.defra.gov.uk/criteria.asp?technology=00030004&subtechnology=000300040004&partner=&section=66&submit_=Search&tech=000300040004
18
Urinal controls are also covered by other labels, such as the WELL classification.43 This
classification awards a higher number of stars for urinal controls with stagnation (hygiene) flush
and flush programs controlled by user frequency as opposed to individual control per urinal.
3.2.4 Flush-free Urinals
Flush-free urinals typically look similar to their flushing equivalents, with the obvious and notable
exception that no water delivery system is required. There are a number of different mechanisms
that can be used with purpose-made complete flush-free urinals. The key aims of the mechanism
are to prevent urine from coming back into the bowl and stop odours from being released in the
washroom.
Where retrofit devices are used to convert a flushing urinal into a flush-free urinal, it is important to
ensure that the water connection for flushing is removed and adequately isolated – this should be
clearly communicated in the installation information.
The main flush-free urinal mechanisms are:
+
cartridges with a barrier liquid;
+
cartridges with a mechanical valve;
+
cartridges with a microbiological control; and
+
vented systems (no cartridge).
Maintenance and regular cleaning is a key aspect of flush-free urinals. Whilst water is not used for
flushing, it is required for the cleaning and maintenance of flush-free urinals, in order to prevent
blockages in pipes from the build up of uric acid salts. The frequency and amount of water required
varies between manufacturers, but their instructions should be followed to ensure optimum
performance is maintained. Additional information regarding clarification of water use in future
flush-free urinals was not provided during the stakeholder meeting or received following the
meeting. The indication from some stakeholders is that future flush-free urinals may use a small
volume of water for hygiene reasons.
As part of the maintenance, the cartridges will generally need to be replaced in line with
manufacturer’s instructions. This will vary depending on the type of mechanism and the use, but is
typically between 3 and 6 months.
The vented system does not require cartridge replacement, but will require general cleaning. In
addition, this type of system requires energy use for operating a fan which creates a negative
pressure to prevent odour from escaping into the washroom. This will then need to be vented to
the atmosphere, which will need to be carefully considered to ensure the odour does not affect
others. An example of a flush-free urinal with a fan mechanism uses approximately 3 kW of
electricity. It should also be noted that the fan will need to be periodically replaced. The product
information for this example indicates that the fans should last in excess of 3 years, and are
inexpensive to replace.44
The level and circumstances of use may affect the type of flush-free urinal chosen.
Stakeholder feedback indicates that the plastic cartridge can be recycled but the extent of this is
unknown. Further research has identified only limited evidence of the recycling of cartridges
directly by manufacturers/suppliers e.g. through take back schemes, and this service depends on
43
http://www.well-online.eu/en/klassifizierung/urinalspuelsysteme.aspx
44
http://www.greenbuildingstore.co.uk/page--airflush-technical.html
19
the type of cartridge used.45 There is no evidence of any wider take back schemes provided by the
manufacturers or a third party.
3.3 Other Innovations and Experience from Outside Europe
3.3.1 Experience from Outside Europe
Further analysis of international ecolabels and registered products indicates that standards in other
countries are not significantly different to the best available products identified in Europe, in
particular for WCs. Insights from Singapore and Australia are provided below.
In Singapore, the best available WCs use 3.5 litres for full flush and 2.3 litres part flush, not
significantly different to 4/2 litres available in parts of Europe. For urinals, the best water using
products are rated at 0.27-0.5 litres per flush, with the majority at 0.40 litres per flush.
In Australia, their Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme has 13 products
registered with 5 stars, with average flush rates of between 2.8 and 3.0 litres. There are currently
no products with 6 stars i.e. with an average flush below 2.5 litres. It is important to note that this is
average flush, and, when comparing the full flush and part flush values instead of average flush,
the performance is comparable with BAT models available in Europe e.g. 4/2 or 4/2.6. The best
performing urinals are in the range of 0.5-0.8 litres per flush per stall.
At the stakeholder meeting, the stakeholders indicated that the same model may be sold
worldwide, but with the flush volume set differently. The reasons for these differences and potential
limiting factors within Europe and different Member States were also considered and discussed. It
is important to understand the reasons and limiting factors for these differences, in order to set
appropriate flush volume criteria. This was discussed further in Section 3.1.1, together with
examples of different products and technologies.
3.3.2 Other Interventions – Grey Water Use
Relatively recent innovations in the market have seen the development of systems that re-circulate
grey water from washbasins and use it for filling the cistern or direct flushing of the urinal, thereby
reducing the amount of water required from the mains. The following examples are integrated
designs that do not require structural changes to buildings or plumbing works.
The first example is the Roca W&W,46 shown in Figure 6, and is aimed at the domestic market.
Water from the integrated washbasin passes through a filtration system to remove any larger
solids, the water is then held in a treatment tank to purify the water before its use for flushing the
toilet.
The manufacturer’s user manual indicates that the system requires the addition of bleach, which is
released to the stored water. It also indicates the recycling function can be turned off depending on
what the user has used the sink for e.g. when used for brushing teeth and shaving as opposed to
hand washing.47 When the recycling function is off the water is disposed of directly to the drainage
system like a conventional sink.
45
http://www.waterlessurinals.co.uk/installation-and-servicing/
http://www.roca.com.es/ww/index.html?en
47
http://www.roca.com.es/ww/pdf/pdf2.pdf
46
20
Figure 6: Roca W+W Integrated toilet and washbasin48
Other models are available from different manufacturers; for example, Caroma49 has models for
the domestic market and SDS50 supply a model for the commercial market.
A further example for an integrated urinal and sink is shown in Figure 7. This uses the water from
washing your hands to directly flush the urinal.51
Figure 7: Examples of a combined sink and urinal52
48
Image from: http://www.igreenspot.com/w-w-by-roca/
http://www.boundarybathrooms.co.uk/Bathroom-Suites/Close-Coupled-WC-and-Cisterns/Caroma-ProfileECO-Toilet-Suite-With-Integrated-Hand-Basin.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=sfeed&utm_campaign=bb
50
http://www.stainlessdesign.net/acatalog/Reading_Combined_Washbasin___WC_Suite.html
51
http://www.standpage.com/files/STAND_presentation.pdf
52
Images from: http://www.yankodesign.com/2010/08/27/whoa-men-to-pee-and-wash-in-the-same-stand/
and http://www.yankodesign.com/2011/04/14/ending-the-urinal-debate/
49
21
Information in relation to potential water savings has not been identified in the manufacturers
marketing information or through further research.
Other grey water use is possible through more advanced grey water harvesting systems which
may also include shower water and rain water. These tend to require additional structural changes
to buildings and plumbing systems and are often integrated as part of a building design. Such
major modifications are outside the scope of this study.
3.4 Barriers
The feedback from stakeholders in response to the second questionnaire and at the first ad hoc
working group meeting highlighted a number of barriers and issues to consider when looking at the
water use of toilets and urinals.
A number of stakeholders indicated that reducing flush volumes below 4.5 litres/flush will depend
on the type of waste water system to which the toilet is connected. If the flow is too low then it can
lead to maintenance issues such as blockages /clogging or the insufficient removal of silt from
pipes. The toilet needs to be able to provide enough volume to flush the waste through the system.
If there is not sufficient volume then double flushing will become an increasing issue and customer
satisfaction with products will diminish. Other stakeholders confirm this by stating that it is unlikely
dual-flush toilets can be taken much lower than a 4/2 flush without changing the design of the pan
or introducing the use of different technology.
It will therefore be important when setting ecolabel criteria in relation to flush volume that it is
clearly stated, for example in the product information, that the installer should check the product is
suitable for use with the waste water system to which it will be connected – is the drainage system
suitable for low flush volumes?
Test standard requirements will also limit the flush volume required. If the flush is too low, it may be
difficult to meet certain requirements (such as dilution) that must be met in order for a product to be
brought onto the market.53
At the stakeholder meeting in October 2011, the issue of drainage systems was raised and
discussed further. A major concern amongst the stakeholders is that they do not have control over
the drainage systems to which their products are connected; in the main, they are limited by the
existing drainage infrastructure that exists throughout different Member States. Whilst it is
accepted that drainage system blockages need to be avoided, further research and discussions
with stakeholders indicate that toilet flushing is not necessarily a limiting factor.
Research suggests that lower flush volume does not necessarily affect the carry within drains.54 55
In addition to the lower flush volume, other considerations such as the nature of the movement of
solids, pipe size and gradients have an influence. Where there is a risk of blockages, these could
be overcome with the addition of a drainage siphon. These systems do not utilise additional water,
but instead store water from the drainage stack e.g. individual appliance discharges until its
capacity is exceeded, at which point the volume within the siphon is released into the drainage
53
Stakeholder feedback
BRE Information Paper – Drainage Design for buildings with reduced water use – IP 1/04
55
Littlewood K, Butler D. Movement mechanisms of gross solids in intermittent flow. Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Imperial College Road,
London SW7 2BU, UK
54
22
system. Examples include the Drain Wave,56 which is marketed in Australia, and products by
Wisa.57
The applicability of this research to the range and variety of drainage systems throughout Europe
is unknown, however it does demonstrate that lower flow volumes within drainage systems do not
necessarily limit reduced flush volumes, and that potential issues could be overcome through the
use of other technologies. Further research would be needed to understand the implications of this
across Europe, before using it as a basis to restrict flush volumes of toilets significantly further
beyond the current best available technologies.
Finally, but importantly, at the stakeholder meeting it was highlighted that market penetration at the
Member State level may be limited by national requirements. For example, stakeholders indicated
that, depending on the drainage type installed (based on EN12056), a minimum flush volume of 6
litres may be required, which is common in Member States such as France, the Netherlands and
Portugal, whereas in the UK a maximum flush volume of 6 litres is set.
On the subject of urinals, it is worth noting that, to date, there is no EN standard for flush-free
urinals, nor is such a standard even in development. This raises issues when assessing the
difference in quality of these products.
Furthermore, although the drainage concern above mainly affects toilets, because of their larger
flush volumes and entrained waste, it can also be an issue for urinals as well, and could affect the
take-up of flush-free urinals. As noted earlier, for flushing urinals, the level of 0.5 litres per flush
would seem to be the limit where urine stones start to appear in drainage system, and going any
lower might lead to maintenance issues as well.
3.5 Conclusions for BAT
The analysis and information reported above leads to the conclusions on BAT presented in
Table 6.
Urinals
Toilets
Table 6: Current BAT Water Usage Levels for Toilets and UrinalsLevels for Toilets and
Urinals
Type of Toilet / Urinal
Flush Volumes (Litres / Flush)
Single Flush
Dual Flush
Traditional Toilet
4
3.5 / 2
Squat Toilet
6
6/3
Flushing Single Urinal
0.5 per bowl
Flushing Trough Urinal 1 litre per place/person
Flush-free Urinal
0
For toilets, it is clear that the current BAT water usage level is lower than (or, for squat toilets,
equal to) the minimum flush volume of six litres permitted in certain EU countries. This raises an
obvious issue with setting a “minimum flush volume” criterion within the EcoLabel or GPP criteria,
as the target flush volume will be lower than what is legally permitted. It is difficult to imagine a
solution to this, apart from accepting that, if a flush volume criterion is included in the EcoLabel,
56
http://www.drainwave.com.au/index.html
http://www.wisasanitair.com/Products/Water_Saving_Technology/Water_Saving_Technology/c185/One_Family_Booster_14
L/?products_id=227
57
23
that the EcoLabel will simply not be achievable in certain EU countries unless their regulations
change.
Stakeholders indicated that they feel 0.5 litres per urinal is about as low as they can go for flushing
single urinals, to the extent that reducing flush volumes any further will require innovation. For
trough urinals, the equivalent figure is 1 litre per place/person.
24
4 Best Not Yet Available Technology
(BNAT)
AEA’s research on BNAT for toilets and urinals revealed little in the way of break-through
technologies yet to hit the European markets. Most of the advice from the industry and other
stakeholders indicates that the market is mature and well established. The principal development
drive is towards smaller flush volumes, and the general consensus was that little further
improvement would be possible in that line.
Stakeholder feedback indicates that minimising the flush volumes for conventional flushing toilets
below certain levels is difficult due to certain barriers that are highlighted above. In order to reduce
further the amount of water used for flushing toilets, additional technologies or features will need to
be considered, or alternative technologies adopted. It should however be remembered that,
although other technologies may reduce water use, they may have other environmental impacts or
barriers that are not associated with conventional flushing toilets e.g. additional energy use or
waste water system requirements.
This section of the report identifies BNAT that can be connected to existing conventional drainage
systems and also highlights other types of technology that can be used to reduce flush volumes,
but are outside the scope of this study.
4.1 BNAT
An example of BNAT identified in the questionnaire feedback is the Propelair58 toilet, currently
under development in the UK. This product achieves a flush volume of 1.5 litres by using a
displaced air flushing system. The toilet lid is closed before flushing to create an air seal. When the
toilet is flushed water enters the bowl to clean it, and is then followed by displaced air which expels
the contents of the bowl before the water trap seal is replenished. These toilets can be attached to
a conventional drainage system and operate using a battery or mains connection, with a manual
version under development. The manufacturer’s website claims that the Propelair technology uses
84% less water and 80% less energy than an average WC. The manufacturer has indicated that
the Propelair toilet itself uses approximately 500 Watts power for a 1 second flush, which is 500
Joules of electrical energy per flush. These energy savings are related to the whole life cycle, and
arise from the reduced supply of water and the reduction in waste water that will need to be
processed, for example through reduced pumping, filtering and aeration at a sewage treatment
works.
Discussions with the manufacturer indicate that production specimens are still under development.
Once the technology has been proven, it will be brought onto the market, initially focussing on the
commercial (non-domestic) sector. The manufacturer has indicated that the costs of the Propelair
toilets for the non-domestic sector will be comparable with a quality conventional non domestic
toilet.
Other technologies in the development stage that are suitable for conventional drainage systems
have not been identified through our research. To confirm as far as possible that this is the case, a
number of manufacturers that attended the first stakeholder workshop were contacted directly for
their views.
The aim of this was to clarify the reasons for the lack of information identified regarding BNAT for
toilets and urinals. Three possibilities were explored:
58
http://www.propelair.com/
25
+
Commercial confidentiality restricting the information available in the public domain;
+
No other developments are currently underway; or
+
Other reasons not yet identified.
A number of responses were received that confirmed that the development of water saving toilets
is limited by the minimum amount of water required for the drainage system. In some cases,
national legislation restricts flush volumes in response to issues with drainage systems.
Stakeholders commented that it would not make sense for them to develop products that could not
be used with existing drainage systems.
It was also highlighted that flush volumes are also driven by factors other than water consumption,
for example consumer expectations with regards hygiene and cleansing. No further examples of
BNAT were provided by the manufacturers contacted and none indicated that other developments
were underway that could not be disclosed for commercial reasons.
It is therefore concluded that, apart from the Propelair example above, no additional BNAT
information for toilets connecting to conventional drainage systems with respect to flush volumes is
currently available.
4.2 Alternative Technologies
Alternative technologies can be used to reduce flush rates. One example provided by stakeholders
in response to the questionnaire is vacuum assisted toilets. Although these have lower flush
volumes e.g. between less than 1 and 3 litres, they require additional elements that are not
necessarily required for conventional flushing toilets. They require additional energy using pumps
and a vacuum drainage system.
Vacuum systems are often found in commercial buildings, for example prisons, and on trains and
aircraft. One stakeholder suggested that, in the future, this type of system could be expanded to
other types of commercial buildings.
It is important to note that these alternative technologies are not BNAT; they already exist, but are
outside the scope of this study and have been included here briefly to highlight other options that
exist.
26
5 Conclusions and Implications for
Criteria Development
Based on the information currently available regarding BAT and BNAT for toilets and urinals, a
number of conclusions can be drawn with regards to the development of ecolabel and Green
Public Procurement criteria:
+
For conventional toilets, full flush volumes of 6 litres per flush are common, and in fact
represent both the minimum and the maximum standards in different countries. Setting criteria
below this level, for example in line with BAT (at 4 litres per flush), may exclude all products on
the market for some Member States.
+
The implication of reduced flush volumes, and therefore reduced flow volumes in drainage
systems, needs to be considered. Stakeholder feedback and research show different opinions
and results regarding issues such as blockages. It is recommended that this issue will need to
be researched further to understand the position across Europe, and therefore a precautionary
approach would be worth considering for the first Ecolabel criteria, with more stringent criteria
possible in the future if the results of more research becomes available.
+
Where flush volumes cannot be reduced, the focus of water preservation could be in relation to
the re-use of water for flushing and grey water systems, some of which are described in this
report.
+
National requirements, for example the proportion between full and part flush and any minimum
or maximum standards set, should be considered to understand how they will affect the
penetration of the European Ecolabel in markets across different Member States.
+
Any criteria need to be very clear as to whether volumes are quoted as maximum/minimum or
average, to ensure standards quoted by other Ecolabels and for products are compared on a
like for like basis.
+
Further discussions with stakeholders are required with regards verification, as testing
requirements can differ between Member States. For example, in the UK, toilet suites are
tested, as opposed to cisterns and pans separately.
+
It is important that, where a low flow cistern is used, a compatible pan is also used. These are
generally shaped/designed to optimise the use of the flow to clear the pan. If this is not done, it
may result in unsatisfactory performance of the flush and result in double flushing.
+
The previous point suggests that ecolabelling of suites may be an option to ensure cisterns and
pans are compatible. However, feedback from the first stakeholder meeting indicates that
suites are not common in all countries (Germany, for example) and suites represent only one
third of EU sales when compared to cisterns/pans that are bought/supplied separately. In order
to avoid excluding a significant part of the market from applying for the ecolabel, this should be
taken into account, and criteria relating only to the compatibility of cisterns and pans included.
+
Other toilet technologies and product developments to reduce flush volumes beyond current
BAT do exist. These however generally use different technologies to conventional toilets and
may have direct energy use requirements, which would affect the life cycle assessment,
although in some cases they can be connected to the conventional drainage system.
+
For urinal controls, there are other aspects in addition to the flush volume that may be as
equally important to control the use of water. These include, for example, user activated
sensors, the sensitivities of sensors and refill cycles.
+
It is important that installation and maintenance guidelines are provided to the installer and end
user, to ensure products function at their optimum level. For installation, this may include
consideration of user patterns for urinal controls. Correct maintenance is particularly important
for flush-free urinals.
27
+
Clear information is required for the end user regarding functionality and user-defined
variables/features that can be changed e.g. flush volume, half/full flush buttons.
+
The indication is that, for conventional toilets, there is not a significant premium for low water
use products, and cost will generally depend on the level of product ‘quality’ the consumer
wishes to purchase.
28