This is not the place to cut corners in construction

This is not the place to cut corners in construction

There has been considerable discussion recently about the mechanical insulation at the Olympic Village. It may come as a shock to some readers that the problem of inadequate or substandard insulation is widespread in residential, commercial and industrial projects throughout British Columbia.

I've been in construction for 27 years, but even I'm surprised occasionally.

A city in the Okanagan chose the lowest bid to build an indoor ice rink and soccer field. It was constructed with no insulation of the geothermal, plumbing and ventilation systems even though it was specified. Soon after the facility opened, the condensation pouring from the ceiling required the placement of slippery floor signs everywhere. It was a liability issue. A mechanical insulation company was called in, at much higher cost, to correct the problems.

I've also been on sites where the walls are up and insulation that was covering the pipes has been torn off and left on the floor to be thrown away. There wasn't enough room for it once the walls started to go up. These things never happened 25 years ago and there are many reasons for the current situation.

Sometimes it's a design flaw. The plans don't allow enough space between the walls and pipes for the proper thickness of insulation. Insulation installation is one of the last steps in building construction. By the time our trade gets on site, everyone is pushing to get the job finished so they can move onto the next project.

It's rare that a job will be stopped so that the pipe can be rerun properly and telling the drywallers to hold off throws the schedule out of whack. On top of that, the inspector has to be called back and general contractors don't want to go through that process again.

The B.C. Building Code includes minimum insulation tables that are easy to follow. But where are the teeth to ensure the code is being followed? There are too few qualified inspectors who know what to look for. Construction engineers who are called in to inspect mechanical insulation are often learning on the fly.

We also know some contractors who think they can do the work themselves or hire workers who are not trained in the craft of installing insulation.

And we know contractors who get away with poor practices because they believe that once the drywall goes up no one will notice. Our position is that when they're caught, they should be ordered to do it right or get kicked off the project without payment. I'm certain that they'd never try to pull such a stunt again.

There are also cases of owners and developers who make conscious, but misguided, decisions not to properly insulate because they see it as a way to save a few dollars. Mechanical insulation accounts for a tiny percentage of the total construction costs. However, it starts paying for itself immediately. When it's done to the highest standards, it can result in 90 per cent energy efficiency. If it's left undone, the owner will be stuck with soaring energy costs and excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

There's growing concern about reducing our carbon footprint and rightly so. Saving energy has always been central to the work we do. Leaving hot water pipes and heating ducts without insulation is wasteful. It allows heat to escape and forces mechanical systems to work much harder.

Our craft is also associated with maintaining healthy buildings. Uninsulated cold water pipes allow for the pooling of condensation. The least harmful outcome will be stained walls and ceilings. At worst, it can lead to sick-building syndrome.

Our association is developing a quality assurance program that requires fully trained inspectors to ensure that all mechanical insulation is done according to specifications. We have been offering successful Lunch and Learn sessions to demonstrate what proper insulation technique looks like and we are working with BCIT to provide a certificate program for inspectors with online training.

Obviously it is far cheaper to reduce our energy consumption than look for new energy sources. According to the B.C. Ministry of Environment, commercial buildings in Metro Vancouver have a larger carbon footprint than the millions of cars travelling the region on a daily basis, 50.5 per cent to 44.6 per cent.

The data clearly show that we can have a greater positive impact by reducing energy consumption in buildings than by trying to force people out of their cars.

Alberta set to benefit from finite cap on greenhouse gases

Limited cap on oilsands emissions would place unfair burden on industries in B.C. and other provinces, environmentalists warn

Vancouver Sun, July 31, 2009, By Barbara Yaffe

 

Alberta's energy sector looks poised, again, to take centre stage in a national unity fight pitting East against West.

The scenario being discussed would flip the unfairness the province experienced back in the 1980s under the National Energy Program, which forced Alberta to sell oil to Eastern Canada at reduced prices.

This time, Easterners and folks in B.C. would be the ones to make a sacrifice -- on behalf of the Prairie province.

That is, if Canada imposes a finite cap on greenhouse gas emissions under a cap and trade scheme, as it's expected to, industrial sectors across the country would have to share the quota in a way that accommodates the disproportionately polluting tar sands.

"A real cap sets up a zero sum situation for industrial emissions . . . special treatment for one under a hard cap means penalizing another in order to maintain the cap," warn environmental activists in a May pamphlet Divided We Fall: The Tar Sands vs. The Rest of Canada.

"Special treatment for tar sands emissions would . . . lead to unfair impacts on others, particularly the Ontario and Quebec manufacturing and industrial sectors that make up the bulk of remaining industrial emissions in Canada."

The activists -- Equiterre, ForestEthics and Environmental Defence -- say the predicament will "drive a damaging wedge between the provinces."

In a separate report this week, ForestEthics asserts Ontario and Quebec companies won't be the only ones penalized: "B.C. industries, such as pulp, paper and oil and gas, would be forced to reduce their carbon emissions beyond their fair share."

The group wants B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell to address the issue Wednesday at the Council of the Federation meetings in Regina.

Clearly, environmentalists are eager to stir animosity toward particular energy projects they deem excessively polluting. But the scenario they envision is realistic.

Both the U.S. and Canada have stated an intention to implement a cap and trade system to address carbon emissions, though neither has announced specifics on how it would work.

It's reasonable to ask how the oilsands would be treated by a Canadian scheme.

With a hard cap in place, would its voluminous greenhouse-gas emissions crowd out emissions from other sectors in other provinces?

Currently, Alberta, by a wide margin, is the biggest producer of carbon emissions, at 114.4 million tonnes annually.

Ontario is next, with 73.9 million. All other provinces, individually, emit less than 24 million tonnes. B.C. emits 12.7 million.

Putting oilsands projects into perspective, they account for a scant .1 per cent of global emissions.

But clearly they're a problem for Canada at a time of concern about climate change, particularly since production is expected to accelerate.

That's because the Americans are hooked on tar sands oil and Canadians are hooked on the associated profits.

The oilsands account for about 40 per cent of Canada's oil production. Fully 60 per cent of output from the oilsands goes to U.S. refineries.

According to Greenpeace, tarsands production will soon multiply four to five times to feed the U.S. appetite, from 27 million tonnes today to 126 million tonnes by 2015.

The question raised by the environmentalists: Which other Canadian sectors will be forced to step aside to make room for all those additional oilsands-related emissions; emissions that won't be permitted to exceed a firm quota imposed by a cap and trade system?

Directory: cpi -> briefs
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news
briefs -> The environment in the news

Download 261 Kb.

Share with your friends: