LEED EB Pilot Participant Questions - usgbc.org€¦ · Web viewUtilize Infrared Thermography (which detects temperature difference up to 0.0~C) to detect water leakage and thus

Answers for LEED EB Pilot Questions, Groups 1-16Updated July 27, 2004

LEED for Existing BuildingsThe LEED Green Building Rating System™

For Improving Building PerformanceThrough Upgrades and Operations

Pilot Program

Answer to Pilot QuestionsUpdated: July 27, 2004

Leadership in Energyand Environmental Design

U.S . G R E E N B U I L D I N G C O U N C I L

1


Introduction

The LEED EB Pilot uses this document to provide formal answer to questions asked by LEED EB Pilot participants. This document is periodically updated and the updated version are posed on the LEED EB Pilot Participant web page on the USGBC web site that is accessible to all LEED EB pilot participants.

Before you use this document always check the LEED EB Pilot participant only web page to make sure you have the latest version of this documents.

To submit additional questions to please email these to [email protected]

For additional information please , please contact LEED EB Committee Co-Chair Michael Arny by email ([email protected]) or by telephone at 608-280-0255.

For additional information about the USGBC and other LEED rating system products please visit the USGBC web site at: www.usgbc.org or call the USGBC at 202-828-7422

2

http://www.usgbc.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Index

1. Introduction

2. List of LEED EB Prerequisites and Credits

3. Questions and Answers

Sustainable SiteWater EfficiencyEnergy and AtmosphereMaterials and ResourcesIndoor Air QualityInnovation CreditsAccredited Professional CreditsLEED EB Process and ScheduleOther Questions

Appendix A: Numbering System for Questions

3


Summary of Prerequisites and Credits for LEED EB

Sustainable SitesPrerequisite 1: Erosion and Sedimentation ControlCredit 1: Site SelectionCredit 2: Urban RedevelopmentCredit 3: Brownfield Redevelopment [Not Included in LEED EB]Credit 4: Environmentally Preferable Transportation

Credit 4.1: Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation AccessCredit 4.2: Alternative Transportation, Bicycle FriendlyCredit 4.3: Alternative transportation, Alternative Fuel Re-Fueling Stations or

Preferred Parking Programs for Hybrid or Alternatively Fueled VehiclesCredit 4.4: Alternative Transportation, Preferred Parking for Car Pools and Van Pools

Credit 5: Reduced Site DisturbanceCredit 5.1: Vegetative Ground CoverCredit 5.2: Native or Adapted Vegetation

Credit 6: Stormwater ManagementCredit 6.1: Stormwater Reduction RunoffCredit 6.2: Stormwater Treatment

Credit 7: Reduced Heat Island EffectCredit 7.1: Landscape and Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof SurfacesCredit 7.2: Landscape and Interior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof Surfaces

Credit 8: Light Pollution ReductionCredit 9: Green Site and Building Exterior Management

Credit 9.1: Green Site and Building Exterior Management OverallCredit 9.2: Low Impact Site and Building Exterior Chemical/Fertilizer/Pest

Management Program

Water EfficiencyPrerequisite 1: Minimum Water EfficiencyPrerequisite 2: Discharge Water ComplianceCredit 1: Water Efficient Landscaping

Credit 1.1: Potable Water Use Reduction, 50%Credit 1.2: Potable Water Use Reduction, additional 50% (100% total)

Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater TechnologiesCredit 3: Water Use Reduction

Credit 3.1: Water Use Reduction, 10% ReductionCredit 3.2: Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction

Energy and AtmospherePrerequisite 1: Comprehensive Building Commissioning/retro CommissioningPrerequisite 2: Minimum Energy PerformancePrerequisite 3: Ozone ProtectionCredit 1: Optimize Energy PerformanceCredit 2: Renewable EnergyCredit 3: Continuous Commissioning and MaintenanceCredit 4: Additional Ozone Protection

4


Credit 5: Measurement and VerificationCredit 5.1-5.3: MeteringCredit 5.4: Energy Savings and Emissions Reductions

Credit 6: Green Power

Materials and ResourcesPrerequisite 1: Waste Management

Prerequisite 1.1: Waste Management, Waste Stream Audit and Reduction ProgramPrerequisite 1.2: Waste Management, Recycling Facilities

Credit 1: Continued Existing Building UseCredit 2: Construction Waste ManagementCredit 3: Resource ReuseCredit 4: Recycled ContentCredit 5: Local/Regional MaterialsCredit 6: Rapidly Renewable MaterialsCredit 7: Certified WoodCredit 8: Occupant Recycling

Indoor Environmental QualityPrerequisite 1: Minimum IAQ PerformancePrerequisite 2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) ControlPrerequisite 3: Asbestos Removal or EncapsulationCredit 1: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) MonitoringCredit 2: Increase Ventilation EffectivenessCredit 3: Construction IAQ Management PlanCredit 4: Low-Emitting MaterialsCredit 5: Green Housekeeping

Credit 5.1: Entryway Systems to Prevent Particles from EnteringCredit 5.2: Isolate Water and Chemical Concentrate Mixing AreasCredit 5.3: Isolate High Volume Copying/Print Rooms/Fax StationsCredit 5.4: Low Impact Environmental CleaningCredit 5.5: Low Impact House Keeping Disposable Products PolicyCredit 5.6: Low Environmental Impact Pest Management PolicyCredit 5.7: Outdoor Chemical Storage Policy and Facility

Credit 6: Controllability of SystemsCredit 7: Thermal ComfortCredit 8: Daylighting and ViewsCredit 9: Contemporary IAQ Practice

Innovation and Accredited Professional PointsCredit 1.1-1.4: Innovations in Operations and Upgrades

List of Suggested Topics For Innovation Credits Credit 2: LEED Existing Building Accredited Professional

LEED EB Pilot Process and ScheduleProcess Questions

5


General Questions

6


Section 1: Sustainable Sites

Sustainable Sites, Prerequisite 1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1 In an urban situation, unless there is a major project or addition to the facility, I would

doubt there would be a need for an erosion control plan. Projects totally within the building envelope would not require such a plan. I assume a no requirement situation that explains there were no projects that required such a plan during the previous period would be acceptable. Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

For the LEED EB Prerequisite 1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control, the point is having an Erosion and Sedimentation Control policy in place so that if the situation comes up it will be followed. In an urban fully developed setting these projects just will not come up very often, but if they do the policy will be in place.

Example Erosion and Sedimentation Control Policy: “If and when construction projects are carried out on the site of this building, plans and construction contract documents shall specify that a site sedimentation and erosion control plan will be developed and implemented that conforms to best management practices in the EPA’s Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, EPA Document No. EPA-832-R-92-005, Chapter 3, OR local Erosion and Sedimentation Control standards and codes, whichever is more stringent. The plan developed and implemented shall meet the following objective: prevent loss of soil by stormwater runoff and/or wind erosion during any landscaping or building improvements that disturb the site. Further, when the occasion for such plans to develop arises, it will be documented that the plans meet the specified criteria and it will be documented that such plans are effectively implemented.”

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 6 - Q#2The CCI Center is located in an urban residential neighborhood on Pittsburgh’s South

Side. The lot is approximately 7040 sq. ft. with the building footprint occupying approximately 5782 sq. ft (82%) of the site. The building is ‘locked’ by streets and other buildings with no room for expansion of the building footprint. Zoning also prohibits any expansion to the building. Hypothetically, if the building were to be expanded, it would have three possibilities:

1. Minor changes to the existing building which do not affect the footprint2. Addition to the existing building, OR 3. Significant reconstruction involving demolition, excavation and redesign. This

possibility would require an erosion and sedimentation control plan.The CCI Center declares as building policy that all new construction will implement a site-

specific sediment and erosion control plan that conforms to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Document No. EPA 832/R-92-005 (September 2000) Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, Chapter 3.

To meet this standard, CCI will hire a qualified engineer to perform the following as per United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Document No. EPA 832/R-92-005 (September 2000) Storm Water Management for Construction Activities:

1. Site Evaluation and design development: Collect site information; Develop site plan design; prepare pollution prevention site map

7


2. Assessment: Measure the site area; Determine the drainage areas; Calculate the runoff coefficient

3. Control Selection/Plan Design: Review and incorporate State/local requirements; Select the most effective erosion and sedimentation and other controls; Select storm water management controls; Indicate the location of the controls on the sitemap; Prepare an inspection and maintenance plan; Coordinate controls with construction activity; Prepare sequence of major activities

4. Certify and Notify: Certify the plan; Submit notice of intent; Plan location and public access

5. Construction/Implementation: Implement controls; Inspect and maintain controls; Update/change the plan; Report releases of reportable quantities

6. Final Stabilization/Termination: Final stabilization; Notice of Termination; Record retention

Source of Question: CCI Center, Pittsburgh, PA – LEED Registered ProjectResponse:

Having the policy presented in place as organization policy would meet the requirement that a policy be in place on sediment and erosion control for any construction that occurs. The performance part of meeting this prerequisite would be met by a statement that there was no construction in the performance period (3 months for first application and 12 months for periodic re-certification) or a statement that there was construction in the performance period with a description of how this policy was implemented for this construction.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 7 - Q#1INTENT: Control erosion to reduce negative impacts on water and air quality.

This prerequisite is directly related to construction activities and does not address erosion control in existing developments. Erosion on existing sites typically is the result of foot traffic killing the vegetation, steep slopes where sheet flow from stormwater exceeds existing vegetation holding power, or point stormwater outflow that exceeds vegetation’s holding power. The structure of this credit does not address the predominant problems at existing developments that cause erosion and sediment pollution effecting our environment and increasing the total cost of ownership.

Recommend: Modifying this credit as follows:REQUIREMENT: Develop and implement a site sedimentation and erosion control policy that incorporates best management practices for existing facilities. Policy shall address restoring eroded soil areas, elimination of conditions that have resulted in erosion, and compliance with current LEED requirements. The policy requires a plan for maintaining the existing facility’s site to prevent soil erosion and sediment transfer, as well as erosion and sedimentation control from future infrastructure repairs or other construction activities. Erosion control for additions and repairs shall comply with LEED 2.1 requirements.DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Erosion and Sedimentation Control• Provide a copy of the site and erosion control policy that specifies inclusion of current

LEED erosion and sediment control requirements in contract documents for any construction projects within the building or on the building’s site.

• Provide a copy of the erosion and sedimentation control plan and procedures for maintaining the site.

• For new construction or site construction: Comply with LEED 2.0/2.1 requirements.

8


Currently, LEED-EB requires any construction projects carried out at the building over the last year, declare whether the project followed LEED erosion and sedimentation control criteria. This is problematic because project documents are often not available after the fact, especially from projects over two-years old. LEED-EB should focus on integrating sustainable practices into the building owner’s existing approach and require documentation on activities on a go-forward basis. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

When the LEED EB Ballot draft is prepared, a requirement will be added to this prerequisite that a plan and appropriate procedures must be in place that provide ongoing erosion and sedimentation control for the site. The requirement that a policy be in place requiring erosion and sedimentation controls be implemented for any onsite construction will be retained as well. The performance period for these policies starts when they are adopted and implementation of these policies begins. The expected approach is as follows: (1) The policies are adopted by the organization, (2) Documentation is the collected for one yearPrerequisite Language as Modified.Sustainable SitesPrerequisite 1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control INTENT: Control erosion to reduce negative impacts on water and air quality.REQUIREMENT:

Develop and implement a site sedimentation and erosion control policy that incorporates best management practices. The policy needs to provide for maintaining the existing facility’s site to prevent soil erosion and sediment transfer, as well as erosion and sedimentation control resulting from future infrastructure repairs or other construction activities.

Ongoing Erosion and Sedimentation Control on the site: Develop and implement a plan and the appropriate procedures for ongoing restoration of eroded soil areas and elimination of conditions that result in erosion and sedimentation transfer.

Erosion and Sedimentation Control for any construction or landscaping on the site: Develop and implement as policy a site sedimentation and erosion plan that conforms to best management practices in the EPA’s Storm Water Management for Construction Activities, EPA Document No. EPA-833-R-92-001, Chapter 3, OR local Erosion and Sedimentation Control standards and codes, whichever is more stringent. The plan shall meet the following objective: Prevent loss of soil by stormwater runoff and/or wind erosion during any landscaping or building improvements that disturb the site.

TECHNOLOGIES/STRATEGIES: The EPA standard lists numerous measures such as silt fencing, sediment traps, construction

phasing, stabilizing of steep slopes, maintaining vegetated ground cover and providing ground cover that will meet this credit.DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Ongoing Erosion and Sedimentation Control

Provide a copy of the policy and procedures that provide ongoing site sedimentation and erosion prevention.

Provide documentation that these policies and procedures have been followed on the site over the last year.

9


Construction Erosion and Sedimentation Control Provide a copy of the site and erosion control policy that specifies inclusion of

these erosion and sediment control requirements in contract documents for any construction projects for the building or on the site.

For any construction projects carried out at the building or on the site over the last year:

Declare whether the project follows local erosion and sedimentation control standards or the referenced EPA standards and provide a brief listing of the measures implemented. If local standards and codes are followed, describe how they meet or exceed the EPA best management practices.

Provide the erosion control plan (or drawings and specifications) with the sediment and erosion control measures highlighted.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1In case you aren’t familiar with it, the City of Portland’s Office of Sustainable

Development, a city agency, has worked with USGBC to establish a local LEED variant called “Portland LEED.” Portland LEED establishes that Portland’s erosion control and stormwater standards are by definition “as strict or stricter” than the EPA reference standard, and therefore, Portland projects are exempted from demonstrating this fact.

We propose that, because the performance requirements and reference standards are the same under LEED-NC and LEED-EB, Portland LEED should apply to EB. Source of Question: James Hatfield Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Since LEED EB is in Pilot phase it important to document what is being done and how each credit is being earned. For each credit or prerequisite where the Portland erosion control or stormwater standards apply, provide a statement referencing the Portland standards that are being followed by name and citation, provide a statement that the standard is more stringent than the standard referenced in the LEED EB rating system, provide a copy of the referenced standard, and provide the documentation of performance over the performance period that is requested in the LEED EB rating system submittal requirements.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - -SS-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:SS Prerequisite: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Background: This project is an atypical LEED-EB project, in that the project was completed (last summer) before the team became aware of LEED-EB. So, while the project was designed and built using green strategies, LEED-EB’s specific guidelines were not being used during design and construction; LEED-EB is now being applied to the project post-construction. This timing is not an issue for most credits (as most credits relate to ongoing operations and maintenance), but a few credits (such as this one) are more difficult to interpret or implement retroactively.

Site work on this project, which was completed within the last year, encompassed agricultural and non- agricultural areas, both with local erosion and sediment control oversight by separate departments of the county non-regulatory district, known as the NRCD (Napa Resource Conservation District) which has a joint powers agreement with the County, who defer these matters to them. The timing of the project (vis-a-vis the introduction of LEED-EB) and the non-regulatory nature of the district, did not require this project to meet the EPA doc standards found

10


in the NPDES, Phase II Chapter 3, SWPPP's, 'Storm Water Management for Construction Activities'. However, the NRCD reviewed and approved the projects erosion and sediment control plans, made site inspections and has approved the project work. NRCD states that they do not provide a written code of performance specifications or BMP's, but that their plan review and response requirements are more stringent than the EPA standard. The BMP's they required, in a system format, are uniquely relevant to this site since they were designed by farmers over time, familiar with the area.Q1: Given that the site work was done prior to the introduction of LEED-EB (and its associated EPA Standard requirement) to the project, can this prerequisite be met without having to demonstrate that the past site work and local NRDC requirements were as stringent as the EPA standards, as long as a newly created SWPPP plan that meets the EPA standard is developed for all future site work?Does the newly created SWPPP plan apply to future site work if the area is less than an acre? (The EPA NPDES Phase II standard is written to apply only to site work areas greater than an acre.) The building site area for this LEED-EB application is approximately two acres. Future work will be minimal.

Q2: If the answer to the first question is No, then: How would we prove that the local requirements are as or more stringent than the EPA standard?How would this need to be demonstrated or documented, given that the NRCD does not have a written BMP code, although the practical application, now complete, may be more stringent and relevant?

Q3: Because the site disturbance work is completed and certain EPA requirements cannot be retroactively met, such as monitoring and inspection during construction on either inspection scenario as required in EPA ch3.10A, [i.e., 1- At least once every 7 calendar days, OR 2- At least once every 14 calendar days and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event of 0.5 inches or greater] can you please confirm that the project’s past site work would be exempt from such requirements in order to meet the pre-requisite? or do the issues of timing apply only looking forward? Source of Question: Vineyard 29 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse LEED-EB PILOT - -SS-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:LEED-EB requires that policies and actions be implemented on a going forward basis, not retroactively. For this reason polices need to established and then from that date forward they need to be followed. So the LEED-EB Certification Application needs document that the policies have been established and then from that date the policies were established they have been followed over the performance period. Note that for first time LEED-EB Certification Applications the performance period can be as little as 3 months and in subsequent recertifications it will be from 1 to 5 years.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 1: Site Selection

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1These credits are both credits for occupying an existing building. One credit is

questionable, 2 is even more questionable! Source of Question: Paladino and Co.

11


Response: This was carefully considered in the development of the Pilot Draft of LEED EB. A review

of LEED for New Construction (LEED NC, also commonly known as LEED v 2.0-2.x) leads to the conclusions that LEED NC highly values reuse of existing sites and buildings and minimizing site environmental impacts. Credits in LEED NC include: SS Credit (1 point), MR Credit 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 (3 points). This means LEED for NC provides up to 4 points for reducing site impacts of site selection and for reuse of building components. The LEED EB participant reusing a whole building is even better for the environment than a LEED NC participant using components of an existing building. For this reason 2 points were included in LEED EB for continuing to use an existing building.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 7 - Q#2INTENT: Avoid development of inappropriate sites and reduce the environmental impact

from location of a building on a site.REQUIREMENT: Continue to occupy an existing building.TECHNOLOGIES/STRATEGIES: Continue to occupy an existing buildingDOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Site Selection

• Provide a signed written statement that your organization continues to occupy the existing building for which certification is being requested.The Site Selection Credit contained in LEED-EB is not consistent with the current version

of LEED and would give credit to facilities that were developed in areas prohibited by the original intent. Recommend elimination of this credit as it does not follow LEED 2.0 or LEED-EB intent, can not be controlled by the owner/occupant of an existing building, compromises the sustainable development principles contained in LEED 2.0, and does nothing to promote change that follows SD principles. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building Services Response:

LEED for New Construction strongly encourages building reuse and this LEED EB credit is consistent with LEED for New Construction on this issue. See response SS-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1 on this credit. Staying in an existing building and improving it through LEED EB is a choice building owners make relative to building a new building on a green field site or tearing down the existing buildings and building a new building on the existing site, or moving to a newer building.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1"Our pilot project building is one of three buildings in a complex. The complex, or block,

size is 423,168 square feet. The two larger buildings are barracks. Our building is in the middle and is the smallest of the three buildings.

There are features/elements common to all three buildings. Our question addresses how to calculate the numbers of elements that are shared for the required documentation? For example with landscaping, stormwater and parking, how do we separate usage and improvements for certification?" Source of Question: Fort Lewis Army Base – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

See the response to LEED EB-Pilot: SS-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#3.

12


Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#4We have continually come up against the question of site. For the campus, the site is

defined in 2 ways: 1. The local site, the area immediately around our building, (Defined in the campus master plan as half the distance to the next building, and half the distance of the building to prominent landscape features, back of curb for adjacent drives or parking areas, Etc. 2. The entire Campus. We can obtain different points depending on the definition of site. I realize that LEED EB was designed for an individual building, not for a campus and that LEED for Organizations will be released shortly, which may address this question. But that doesn't help us now. So, here is my question:

Q. Can we define the site differently depending on the credit, as long as we clearly define which site we are speaking to? This will also help us in the future as we certify more buildings according the LEED EB standards, as the documentation will already be in place. For example: 1. Sustainable Sites Credit 5 "Reduced Site Disturbance" This credit will be more beneficial if it is applied to the entire site, and applied globally to the campus. This would give the planners much more flexibility in laying out the campus. We have over 50% of the campus open space covered with ground cover. Because of allowances for density in the campus plan, our building doesn't necessarily have 50% of its site. 2. Water Use and Water Efficiency. Credit 1"Water Efficient Landscaping." The University uses irrigation on some parts of the campus that feels need to have the irrigation, but our building (Local) site was purposely designed without an irrigation system for conservation concerns. Source of Question: Clemson University – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

See the response to question LEED EB-Pilot: SS-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#3. Additionally, programs or actions can be applied campus-wide and then claimed by each building. For example, a green cleaning program can be applied campus-wide and then claimed to earn credit for each building. This approach allows the first building applying for LEED EB certification to guide the implementation of campus-wide actions. This will help establish a program that will make it simpler for additional buildings on the campus to earn these credits when applying for future LEED EB certification.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 2: Urban Redevelopment

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 7 - Q#1Question on Sustainable Sites, Credit 2: Urban Redevelopment: INTENT: Channel

development to urban areas with existing infrastructures, protecting greenfields and preserving habitat and natural resources. Like SS Credit 1, this credit is not applicable to existing facilities and should not be transferred from LEED 2.0. LEED-EB is for existing facilities and 99.9% of existing facilities cannot be moved into higher density areas. LEED sufficiently encourages Urban

13


Redevelopment in LEED 2.0/2.1. It is this author’s opinion that LEED-EB should not duplicate LEED but supplement it byaddressing operational issues.DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Urban Redevelopment• Provide a signed written statement that the existing building for which certification is

being requested is located within an area with a density of at least 60,000 square feet of building floor space per acre (2-story downtown development). The documentation requirement under LEED-EB is not consistent with LEED. In LEED, the building for which LEED is being applied must also meet the 60,000-sq. ft. density requirement to obtain the credit. If this credit is not eliminated it must at a minimum be consistent with LEED.

Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

LEED EB is designed to be the LEED Rating system for existing buildings and as such it needs to address all the sustainability issues identified in LEED for New Construction that apply to existing buildings as well as any additional sustainability issues that arise in existing buildings that do not arise in new building construction. Existing building owners choosing to occupy high-density buildings in high-density areas is a positive choice they can make to help reduce urban sprawl.

To earn this credit the building must itself have a development density equal to or greater than 60,000 square feet per acre. This will be clarified in the credit requirements as follows:

Credit 2: Urban RedevelopmentINTENT:Channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protecting greenfields, preserving habitat and natural resources.REQUIREMENT: Continue to occupy a building that: (1) has a density of at least 60,000 square feet of

building floor space per acre, and (2) is located within an area with a density of at least 60,000 square feet of building floor space per acre (2-story downtown development). (2 points)

TECHNOLOGIES/STRATEGIES: Continue to occupy a building that has a density of at least 60,000 square feet of building floor space per acre, and is located within an area with a density of at least 60,000 square feet of building floor space per acre (2-story downtown development).DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Urban Redevelopment Provide a signed written statement that the existing building for which certification is being requested has a density of at least 60,000 square feet of building floor space per acre, and is located within an area with a density of at least 60,000 square feet of building floor space per acre (2-story downtown development). Note: Buildings of any size can earn this credit as long as the building has the required

density itself and is an area with the required density. The definitions of how to calculate building density are included in the LEED NC Reference Guide.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 9 - Q#2

14


We are a military installation and as such, we have sizeable landscape around our buildings...unlike an urban setting. Our GIS department, that maps our areas, considers the site area around a building to be in relation to the building's drip line. If we can use this measurement, we can justify receiving the urban redevelopment credit.

As a campus setting, if we have to take in all the land from the building to the sidewalks and the halfway mark shared w/another building landscape area, then there isn't a chance. I understand the intent is to "channel development to urban areas with existing infrastructure, protecting greenfields, preserving habitat and natural resources. I read from your reference guide that the "approach works w/reuse and rehabilitation of existing buildings by revitalizing and enhancing existing communities while preserving non-urban spaces." If we focus on reuse and rehabilitation of existing buildings to preserve non-urban spaces, we can justify the credit. What do you think? Source of question: Fort Lewis Army Base – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

To earn this credit the building itself needs to meet the specified density requirement and the buildings in the specified area around the building need to meet the density requirement. For additional information, see the response to LEED EB-Pilot: SS-C2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1 (Check the umber of the Q being referenced) and the definitions in the LEED EB Reference Guide. These requirements for this credit are quite specific and if your building does not meet them your building does not earn this credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#3How is a building’s site defined when a building is in a campus setting? Is the site merely

the building’s footprint or drip line? How are open or green spaces counted in a campus setting? Are they attached to a building or are these separate spaces? What is a reasonable distance for a building to extend the boundaries of the site? Attached are two drawings of the site, one with the site defined at the drip line and one with the site defined as an expanded area. What qualifies as the site for a building in a campus setting? Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

Present a plan for how you would allocate the campus features among the campus buildings including the parking, green space and other features if you were going to apply to have each building on the campus LEED Certified. Once you have used this plan in the LEED certification application for one building on the campus, you also need to use the plan for any other LEED certification applications filed for other buildings on the campus. The campus features allocated to the building constitute the site for LEED certification applications. For many LEED EB credits that involve the establishment of policies, and then providing ongoing implementation, it may be easiest to apply and implement these campus wide so all buildings are covered. As new buildings, facilities, and other features are added to the campus, these should be added to the plan for allocating the campus features among the campus buildings.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#4We are particularly interested in what you are doing with SS Credit 2 because one of our

LEED clients is an existing small (14,000 sq. ft.) office building with a partial second story and a neighboring parking lot. This building does not meet the prerequisite project density of 60,000 sq.

15


ft. of built floor area per acre of site. The surrounding buildings are all at least 2 story-buildings--mostly residential with some commercial properties and therefore the surrounding area does meet the development density requirement.

The renovation will enable the Owner to increase the amount of occupied building space-the number of employees in the building will increase from 30 to about 60. Since it is a commercial office space, the population density of this building was already considerably higher than for the surrounding mostly residential buildings and the renovation is doubling the occupancy density.

Our proposal to you is to waive the prerequisite 60,000 sq. ft./acre for renovating and increasing the population density of existing properties that are located in areas that do meet that development density criteria. Either that, or provide some type of credit for increasing the population density of existing building structures, without having to: develop existing vacant and unpaved lots that are being used for parking; add floors to existing building and therefore blocking solar access or increasing light pollution of neighbors. Also, should there not be credit for having a commercial office building next to residential properties. We believe that mixed use development is something to be encouraged. Let us know what you think. Source of Question: John Katrakis – LEED EB Advisory GroupResponse:

Both the building and the surrounding area need to meet the density requirement to earn this credit. See the response to question: LEED EB-Pilot: SS-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 7 - Q#2.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 3: Brownfield Redevelopment – [Not Included in LEED EB]

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 7 - Q#1EB does not acknowledge brownfields. Almost all brownfields sites have existing

infrastructure and buildings, many of which are occupied. These facilities/sites should be encouraged to remediate the environmental hazards on their site. Recommend: Require compliance with LEED 2.0/2.1 and offer 1 credit for remediation of a site. (Group 7)Source of Question: Commissioning and Green building ServicesResponse:

A credit for brown filed sites was not included in the Pilot Version of LEED EB. A number of comments have suggested that a credit on brownfield sites be included in LEED EB. This response addresses these requests by making a brownfield credit available as an innovation credit during the LEED EB Pilot and by preparing to include brownfield credit in the ballot draft of LEED EB when the Ballot Draft of LEED EB is prepared.

In order to provide stability of the LEED EB rating system for Pilot participants during the LEED EB Pilot, credits are not being added to the LEED EB Rating System during the LEED EB Pilot. Instead, during the LEED EB Pilot any credit additions are being addressed as potential innovation credits. Proposed additions of points to LEED EB will only be formally made in the preparation of the ballot draft of the LEED EB rating system that will be prepared based on what is learned in the LEED EB pilot.

16


During the LEED EB Pilot the meeting the requirements for the credit, for occupying a building on a remediated brownfield site, described below can be used to earn one of the four innovation credits available in the pilot version of LEED EB. The Credit below for occupying a building on a remediated brownfield site will be included in the proposed ballot draft of LEED EB when the ballot draft is prepared.

Proposed language for this credit in the Ballot draft of LEED EB:

SS Credit 3: Brownfield Redevelopment

IntentRehabilitate damaged sites where development is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination, reducing pressure on undeveloped land.

Requirements

Occupy a building on a site that includes land that was classified as a brownfield site and where the contamination of the site has been effectively remediated. (1 point)

Documentation Requirements

Provide a letter from the local, state or federal agency confirming that land on the site was classified as a brownfield site by that agency or provide documentation that the site was contaminated (by means of an ASTM E1527-00 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process).

Provide documentation demonstrating that the contamination on the site has been effectively remediated.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 4: Environmentally Preferable Transportation

Sustainable Sites, Credit 4.1 - Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.1 - QUESTION GROUP 7 - Q#1Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access

• Provide an area drawing highlighting the building location, the fixed rail stations and bus lines and indicate the distances between them. Include a scale bar for distance measurement, AND

• Provide records and results of quarterly contacts with transit link service providers to determine if service continues to be provided within specified distances from building. Credit 4 is already covered in LEED 2.0/2.1 under sustainable sites. Existing buildings cannot change their location placing this credit out of control of the building owner/tenant. In this author’s opinion this credit, as written, does not follow the intent listed on page 4 of the LEED for Existing Buildings.

17


Recommend: Eliminating this portion of credit or changing the credit to give credit to owners who operate private transit shuttles to rail stations or bus stops outside of the LEED distances of ¼ mile to bus stops or ½ mile transit station.


Choosing to continue to occupy buildings near existing public transportation is a positive choice that building owners can make. Owners of buildings that are beyond the reach of existing public transportation can encourage the extension of public transportation to locations near their building. The credit does provide the option of building owners earning this credit by providing transit shuttles to rail stations or bus stops. For the ballot draft of LEED EB, this credit will be updated to reflect the current language of LEED NC 2.1 as follows:

Planned Language for this Credit in the Ballot Draft of LEED EB:

Credit 4.1: Environmentally Preferable Transportation: Public Transportation

INTENT:Reduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use.

REQUIREMENTS:Occupy a building that is (1) within a 1/2 mile of commuter light rail or subway station, or (2) within a ¼ mile of two or more public or campus bus lines usable by building occupants. OR, Provide/maintain a building-occupant conveyance program (shuttle-link) for buildings that are not with in a 1/2 mile of commuter light rail or subway station or with in a ¼ mile of two or more public or campus bus lines usable by building occupants. (1 point)

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access

Provide documentation that shows that the building is initially: (1) within a 1/2 mile of commuter light rail or subway station, or (2) within a ¼ mile of two or more public or campus bus lines usable by building occupants and provide documentation that these public transportation services have continued to be available within the required distances over the year, OR

Document that a building-occupant conveyance program (shuttle-link) is available for occupants of the buildings that are not with in a 1/2 mile of commuter rail light rail or subway station or with in a ¼ mile of two or more public or campus bus lines usable by building occupants and provide documentation that this shuttle link service was provided through out the last year.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.1 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#1Our project site is located in a minor urban area (population 100,000) that has limited but

effective public transportation. We have a single bus route that operates near our site (within the ¼ mile requirement). This route connects to others at various points throughout the area, offering

18


access from all points served by the entire urban bus system. This credit as currently written requires two bus routes. Can we qualify for this credit by demonstrating reasonable (e.g. less than 45 minutes) transit time from any point in the system to our site using a transfer? (Group 10)Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

No, to earn this credit there need to be two bus lines within a quarter mile of the building or a shuttle link to a central location on the bus system needs to be provided.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1Quarterly contacts, although not difficult, are burdensome. We are in a dense urban setting

with well-established bus routes. These bus routes never change. Is an annual report sufficient?

Source of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Checking on and documenting the availability of bus routes within the required distance is required quarterly.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 4.2 - Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Friendly

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Would it be acceptable to establish a policy where bicycle racks would be added to the

existing racks as the need arises? We propose to add additional bicycle parking spots as the average daily usage exceeds a predetermined percentage (i.e. 75%). Currently we have 6 bicycle spaces available located in our parking garage. The daily average during the summer months is only 2. The LEED EB guide would specify 42 bicycle-parking spots for this campus. Source of Question: Johnson & Johnson Headquarters - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1SS Credit 4.2 requires quarterly inspection of bicycle facilities and monthly records of

building occupancy. Monthly occupancy recording seems excessive, and adding bike racks on a monthly basis is not very feasible. Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

In the filing for certification, providing records of quarterly inspection of bicycle facilities and records of the quarterly building occupancy reviews would be sufficient.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.2 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1Being a campus, the planners feel it is unreasonable to include shower facilities in each of

the buildings. There is a recreation center which includes the shower facilities for anyone who comes to campus and needs a shower. Additionally, many of the buildings on campus share bicycle storage facilities, and each building is not necessarily going to have the bicycle storage racks in front of each building. So, will a point be rewarded for the inclusion of the shower facilities somewhere on campus (Recreation center) and the ability to store the bicycles in close proximity to the building?Source of Question: Clemson University – LEED EB Pilot Participant

19


Response: The Credit Interpretations for LEED NC have defined this quite clearly. The bike racks for

a given building must be with in 600 feet of the building applying for certification and if the showers for bike riders are in another building, they must be with in 600 feet of the building applying for certification. (See LEED NC CIR ruling dated June 4, 2003)

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.2 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Has the issue of LEED requiring more showers for bicyclists than is required by the

national plumbing code been addressed through the CIR process for LEED NC?Source of question: discussion with LEED pilot ParticipantsResponse:

Yes, the LEED NC CIR of 10/21/2002 – Ruled that LEED requires that one shower be provided for every eight bicycling occupants (bike storage requirement/8). The LEED Standard is written to encourage bicycle commuting. This implies a 'rush hour' need for shower facilities that may not be addressed by National Plumbing Code (NPC) guidelines for recreational facilities. Substitution of plumbing or other codes for the current LEED standard is not acceptable.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.2 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1What happens with campus settings, where students or employees commute building to

building by bicycle? Is the number of showers supposed to be based on the same multiplier as it is for "traditional" commuters? (Group 13)Source of Question: LEED EB Advisory Group (LEED EB Corresponding Committee)Response:

The same requirements for bike racks and showers apply to buildings that are part of a campus setting as for buildings that are not part of a campus setting. See response to LEED EB-Pilot Question: SS-C4.2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#3. (Check the number of the Q being referenced)

Sustainable Sites, Credit 4.3: Alternative Transportation-Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations or Preferred Parking Programs for Hybrid or Alternatively Fueled Vehicles

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1To earn this credit, do the parking spaces associated with each of the recharging stations,

or the preferred parking programs for hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles, need to be dedicated to hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles if there are not sufficient hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles to fill these parking spaces? Source of Question: A number of verbal inquiries.Response:

To earn this credit, the parking spaces associated with each of the recharging stations or the preferred parking programs for hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles do not need to be dedicated to hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles if there are not sufficient hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles to fill these parking spaces. This response is based on credit interpretation for LEED for New Construction, inquiry ID No. 0213-SSc43-101201.

20


Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Can this credit be earned by having a preferred parking program for hybrid or alternatively

fueled vehicles for at least 10 % of the total vehicle parking capacity?Source of Question: A number of verbal inquiries.Response:

Yes. This credit can be earned by having a preferred parking program for hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles for at least 10 % of the total vehicle parking capacity. This is specifically included in the Pilot Draft of LEED EB.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1(a) Does this credit expect the building owner to build a fuel station? (b) Could credit be

given if commercial stations are available versus one provided by the building owner? (c) Also, if the credit is based upon a percentage of total vehicle count, that would include privately owned vehicles. (d) Would it be expected that the building owner would be selling fuel to privately owned vehicles (that’s not going to happen for government organizations)? (e) The building owner would, however, have control over company or government owned vehicles, there may be a point of a percentage of those vehicles being alternative fueled, but it may not be equal to 3 percent of the total vehicles parking at the facility. Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

(a) Yes, to earn this point there needs to be an alternative fueling station on the premises that provides the specified capacity. So if one is not already present the owner would need to build or install an alternative fueling station. (b) To earn this point there needs to be an alternative fueling station on the premises that is available to the building occupants and provides the specified capacity. It does not mater who owns the alternative fueling station. (c) The criteria for earning this credit is based on the percentage of the total vehicle parking capacity, not on a vehicle count or type of vehicle ownership. (d) To earn this credit by providing onsite alternative-fuel refuel stations, the building owner needs to make the alternative-fuel fueling stations available to the building occupants. (e) Whether or not the building owner provides alternative vehicles or the number of such vehicles the building owner provides is not relevant to earning this point. What is required for earning this point is the building owner providing and maintaining onsite alternative-fuel refuel stations for 3% of the total vehicle parking capacity. The goal of providing refueling stations is to remove a barrier to the use of alternative-fuel vehicles. The level of use of these refueling stations is not a criterion for earning this point.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1A suggestion for a change to the requirements of SS Credit 4.3. We propose that the

requirement be modified to state 10% of the Full-time Equivalent Occupants (FTE). If the monthly checks reveal a FTE increase then more preferred parking stalls should be dedicated. For example: The Moss Landing facility has 37 FTE @ 10% equaling 4 dedicated stalls. The gravel parking lot has a capacity of approximately 100 vehicles @ 10% equaling 10 dedicated stalls. We feel that 4 dedicated stalls would be sufficient for the working population and that dedicating 10 stalls would not be a true reflection of the building population.

21


Source of Question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

To earn this credit the parking spaces associated with the each of the recharging stations or the preferred parking programs for hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles do not need to be dedicated to hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles if there are not sufficient hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles to fill these parking spaces. This response is based on credit interpretation for LEED for New Construction, inquiry ID No. 0213-SSc43-101201.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.3 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1The use of hybrid vehicles can have several environmental benefits but the LEED-EB

steering committee must maintain consistency between USGBC products when crafting new products. This credit is inconsistent with LEED 2.0/2.1 because of the hybrid requirements. Use of hybrid vehicles only partially meets the intent of this credit as these types of vehicles reduce pollution but still drive land development and infrastructure to accommodate them. Inspections to verify fueling capacity are needed for electric charging stations as capacities can drift over time, natural gas fueling capacities however are stable and only change if equipment is non-functional. Non-functional equipment is reported by users almost as quickly as a failure occurs.

Recommend: Modify the credit as follows: Alternative Transportation, Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations

• Provide site drawings and documents highlighting alternative-fuel refueling stations. Include information on venting if applicable or provide documentation of hybrid vehicle usage by building occupants.

• Provide calculations demonstrating that the refueling station(s) can provide fuel for 3% or more of the total vehicle parking capacity OR provide 3% or more of the vehicle parking area for hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles.

• Provide annual documentation that alternate-fuel refueling stations have been maintained and continue to have fueling capacity for 3% or more of the total vehicle parking OR documentation that 3% or more of the parking capacity are occupied by hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles.


22


On the issue of the inclusion of hybrid vehicles in LEED EB: LEED EB addresses the ongoing sustainable operation of buildings where issues are identified that affect ongoing sustainable operation of buildings that do not arise in new building design and construction. LEED EB appropriately adds items that address these issues. Alternate fueled vehicles require a construction component: the construction of fueling stations. This construction component is the reason alternate fuel vehicles were addressed in LEED for New Construction. Hybrid vehicles do not require a construction component so they were not included in the LEED NC. Encouraging the use of hybrid vehicles as part of ongoing building operation is a means to reduce environmental emissions from vehicles. The environmental benefits of alternate fueled vehicles are reduced or relocated vehicle emissions to the atmosphere. For example, the impact of electric vehicles, if charged using fossil fuel generated electricity, is to move the emissions caused by the vehicle from the location of the electric vehicle to the location of the electric generating plant. Hybrid vehicles reduce emissions by reducing fuel consumption. Hybrid vehicles provide comparable or greater environmental emission reduction benefits to currently available alternate fueled vehicles like electric vehicles.

On the issue of documentation of fueling capacity of electric charging stations:A requirement that periodic inspection be carried out to verify fueling capacity of electric

charging stations will be added to the documentation requirements for this credit in the ballot draft of LEED EB.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 4.4: Alternative Transportation, Preferred Parking for Car Pools and Van Pools

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.4 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Please provide clarification regarding the inspection/verification criteria, i.e. monthly

checks of dedicated carpool stalls. Do the monthly inspections start in year one, after the project is certified, or do inspections start right now? We are in the process of ordering and installing the signs for preferred parking. It's easy to see that we can't inspect something that isn't set up yet! Source of Question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

For the initial certification of a building under LEED EB, 6 months to one year of performance data needs to be submitted as support for the requested certification. For re-certification of a building in subsequent years, following initial certification under LEED EB, performance data for the entire period since the last certification needs to be submitted as support for the requested re-certification. LEED EB requires periodic re-certification. This will facilitate the inclusion of ongoing re-certification achievements in the organizations’ internal performance goals.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.4 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1SS Credit 4.4 requires daily reports of telecommuting. This seems excessive. Would

monthly or quarterly summaries be sufficient? Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

23


The issue is making sure there is underlying tracking and documentation of how much telecommuting is actually happening. A system needs to be in place to gather this information so that what is actually happening is known. One state telecommuting representative contacted said that the most common approach for agencies in their state is to have teleworkers submit telework travel logs and their time sheets have a teleworkcode. In the filing for certification, providing quarterly summaries with a description of the nature of the underlying information these summaries are based on would be sufficient.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.4 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#3Parking for car/vanpools serving 5% of the occupants or telecommuting for 10% or more

of the building occupants is inconsistent. It is important that there is consistency within the credits and between LEED products.

Recommend: 5% of the building occupants for both telecommuting and car/vanpools for consistency within the credit and with LEED 2.0/2.1.

Alternative Transportation, Parking Reductions• Provide a description, parking plan, and company literature describing carpool and vanpool

programs designed to serve 5% of the building occupants, AND• Provide annual summary and the supporting daily reports on carpool and vanpool usage

documenting that these programs serve 5% of the building occupants on an annual average basis, OR

• Provide a description of telecommuting program designed to reduce the commuting frequency to 70% for 10% or more of the building occupants, AND

• Provide annual summary and the supporting daily reports on telecommuting participation documenting that this program is reducing the commuting frequency to 70% for 10% or more of the building occupants on an annual average basis.Company literature accompanied by an annual statement of the number of building

occupants participating in the programs would, in our opinion, be sufficient documentation for van/carpool and telecommuting programs. We must be very careful not to over burden owners with documentation requirements that do not assist them in managing their facilities in accordance with sustainable development principles. Daily reporting as required by this credit will place additional administrative burdens on owner/building tenants to document building occupant usage patterns. If an owner develops a policy, issues specific parking permits documenting the percentage of building occupants participating in the program, the intent of the credit is met.

Promotion of telecommuting comes through employer policy and plan implementation. Workers choice to telecommute is dependent on employee’s personal management of work responsibilities. Setting percentages of commuting frequency is problematic and the daily documentation requirements place a tremendous burden on both the telecommuter and business owner.

Recommend: Changing documentation requirements to annual summary of the percent of employees enrolled in the telecommuting program. This significantly reduces an owner’s required paper work and use of natural capital while promoting the sustainable development principles.Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

On the issue of reporting frequency and documentation: See the response to LEED EB SS-C4.4 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2. (Check the number of the Q being referenced)

24


On the issue of the level of telecommuting required to earn a point, versus the amount of preferred parking that needs to be provided for car/vanpools required to earn a point: The level of the achievement bar for earning a point with telecommuting will be reviewed when the ballot draft of LEED EB is prepared, based on pilot project results. If, instead of demonstrating the percentage of building occupants using telecommuting, the LEED EB certification applicant prefers to demonstrate the impact in terms of an equal percentage reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by the telecommuting, this would also be acceptable.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.3 & 4.4 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#1Our building of 29+ people has 13 parking spaces. We rent these spaces from a church

which owns the large parking lot behind our building. The majority of driving occupants park on the street. Four spaces are reserved for visitors. Several of the spaces are used for loading vehicles or for use by those who must come & go from work throughout the day. We currently do not have any occupants who use alternative vehicles (although a former employee had a hybrid). We also have few people who are able to carpool due to several factors. We would like to encourage this line of thinking, but have limited parking to begin with.

To earn this credit, is it adequate to dedicate 10% of parking spots for the combined use of alternative fueled vehicles AND carpools? i.e. 10% of 13 spaces is 1 space. That space would be marked for use by carpools AND/OR alternative fuel vehicles. This would be incorporated into building policy. Source of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Credit 4.3 can be earned by providing a preferred parking program for hybrid or alternate fueled vehicles that include 10 % of the parking spaces available. So the proposed approach would earn this credit. Credit 4.4 can be earned by providing preferred parking and programs and policy for car pools or vanpools capable of serving 5% of the building occupants. The proposed approach does not meet this requirement so the proposed approach would not earn Credit 4.4 .

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C4.4 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#1Currently, the campus has preferred parking, but it does not serve 5% of the campus'

employees. However, because of the layout of the parking lots, the company does not consider preferred parking to be enough of an incentive to carpool. In order to provide incentives, the company has a program that provides quarterly and annual rewards for people who carpool. They are also willing to look into carpool matching software as an additional means of encouraging this form of commute. Would these three measures combined meet the intent of this point? Source of Question: Nike – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse

Credit 4.4 can be earned by providing preferred parking and programs and policy for carpools or vanpools capable of serving 5% of the building occupants. What has been proposed could meet these requirements if a demonstration were provided that the carpools or vanpools are capable of serving 5% of the building occupants.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 5: Reduced Site Disturbance

25


Sustainable Sites, Credit 5.1, Vegetative Ground Cover

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1Is green space over a parking garage considered a ‘green roof’ or ‘open space’?Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response: (1) Open space is defined as the gross site area minus the development foot print on the site. The

Development footprint includes: the building, the hardscape, the roads, and the parking areas (Based on LEED for NC Credit Interpretation ID0166-SSc5.2-11901).

(2) The upper deck of a parking garage is defined to be a non-roof impervious surface (based on LEED for NC Credit Interpretation ID0064-SSc7.2-092801).

(3) The green space over a parking garage can be considered either a green roof or open space but once it is used as one or the other it must be used this way consistently throughout the LEED EB certification application.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#2Credit intent is only partially applicable to existing buildings. The disturbance to an

existing site is well past except for infrastructure repairs or new construction projects which are outside the scope of LEED-EB. It may be more appropriate to rename the credit to “Preserve/restore existing site.”Recommend: Changing name and intent of credit to preserve existing natural areas and restoration of damages to habitat that promote green space and encourage biodiversity.REQUIREMENT: Restore/maintain vegetated ground cover to a minimum of 50% of the open site, or undertake a Phase 1 site remediation program of a Brownfield on the site, or create/maintain green space covering 25% of the horizontal roof of the building. (1 point)

A Phase 1 is not appropriate for this credit as it is not related to open space. Phase 1, as defined by ASTM, is a report of the potential environmental risks associated with a subject property. Phase 1’s identify risks on a subject property and risks from adjacent properties that could contribute to the environmental risk associated with the subject property. Requirement for Phase 1 reports and Phase 2 investigations/remediation plans are specifically relative to brownfields or environmentally contaminated sites.

In addition, the verbiage for this credit is not consistent with LEED 2.0/2.1. Requirement of covering 25% of an existing roof belongs under heat island credit for consistency with credit intent and LEED 2.0/2.1. The green space covering provided in this credit is a duplication of what is contained in the heat island credit, thus giving 2 credits for the same green roof.Recommend: Removing verbiage referencing Phase 1 from this credit, and consideration of restoring Brownfield credit. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

On the issue of brownfield sites: In the initial Ballot Draft of LEED EB under SS Credit 3, one point will be given for occupying a building on a former brownfield site that has been remediated. In the initial Ballot Draft of LEED EB under SS Credit 5.1, the language on brownfields will be removed.

26


On the issue of providing a green space credit under this credit, as well as under SS Credit 5.2 and SS Credit 7, which addresses reduced heat islands: This credit intentionally provides a credit for roof green space since urban buildings may have few other green space options. The combination of points available under credits SS Credit 5.1, SS Credit 5.2, and SS Credit 7 are intended to provide strong encouragement for green space on roofs.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#3:Our building was designed to maximize vegetative space surrounding the building.

Although the intent matches that of LEED, the strategies used do not fall into the parameters established for SS Credit 5. The CCI Center's footprint occupies 78% of the site, leaving very little area to work with when approaches to the building are considered. We are in a dense urban area with very little vegetation. We've planted a side garden and a large planted area on our property. In addition, we've planted four street trees in the public sidewalks surrounding the building on 2 sides - CCI is on the corner of 2 streets and the sidewalk abuts the building. One area under a rail in the adjacent church parking lot we've planted with native wild flowers. Much of the plantings we have done around the building are not on our site. We can account for only 28.93% of the open space being vegetated, but have not included most of the areas not within our site.

In addition, there are plantings on the building which are neither "open space" or a "green roof." The rooftop above the 2nd floor has a veranda with several planters full of native vegetation, including 2 locust trees. The second story balcony has planters built into it and there are planter boxes on several windows on the ground floor. We have a familyof robins nesting under our PV array and a family of mourning doves that frequent our rooftop veranda each year. Early this week we watched 3 species of bees busy at work. 100% of the vegetation planted is native or naturalized.

With this situation, how do we get SS Credit 5.1 and 5.2? It is a combination of the first and third ways of getting the creditSource of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

SS Credits 5.1 and 5.2 could be earned by installing a roof garden covering 25% and 50% of the roof area. The open area for LEED EB 5.1 and 5.2 is defined using the LEED NC definition for 5.2 which is the gross site area minus the building area. If areas surrounding the site area owned by the building owner are under the contractual control of the building owner these can be included in the site area and green space areas used in these calculations.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - SS-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1SS 5.1: Reduced Site Disturbance-If we were to include the agricultural/vineyard areas within the project's site boundary, can the vineyard areas be counted as "vegetated ground cover"?Source of Question: Vineyard 29 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse - LEED-EB PILOT - SS-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:No agricultural crops, including vineyards, are not considered to be “vegetated ground cover”.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 5.2, Native or Adapted Vegetation

27


Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.2 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1In a dense urban situation, there may not necessarily be in existence any of the original

natural areas. However, could credit be received if the urban facility uses native or adapted vegetation for it’s landscaping? Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: Yes.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.2 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1Is green space over a parking garage considered a ‘green roof’ or ‘open space’?

Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response: 1) Open space is defined as the gross site area minus the development foot print on the site. The

development foot print includes: the building, the hardscape, the roads, and the parking areas. ( Based on LEED for NC Credit Interpretation ID0166-SSc5.2-11901)

2) The upper deck of a parking garage is defined to be a non-roof impervious surface. (based on LEED for NC Credit Interpretation ID0064-SSc7.2-092801)

3) The green space over a parking garage can be considered either a green roof or open space but once it is used as one or the other it must be used this way consistently throughout the LEED EB certification application.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.2 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#3Credit intent is only partially applicable to existing buildings. The disturbance to an

existing site is well past except for infrastructure repairs or new construction projects which are outside the scope of LEED-EB. It may be more appropriate to rename the credit to “Preserve/restore existing site.”Recommend: Changing name and intent of credit to preserve existing natural areas and restoration of damages to habitat that promote green space and encourage biodiversity.REQUIREMENT: Restore/maintain a minimum of 25% of the open site area by planting native or adapted vegetation, OR undertake a Phase 1 site remediation program of a Brownfield on the site, or create/maintain green space covering 50% of the horizontal roof of the building. (1 point)

A Phase 1 is not appropriate for this credit as it is not related to open space. Phase 1, as defined by ASTM, is a report of the potential environmental risks associated with a subject property. Phase 1s identify risks on a subject property and risks from adjacent properties that could contribute to the environmental risk associated with the subject property. Requirement for Phase 1 reports and Phase 2 investigations/remediation plans are specifically relative to brownfields or environmentally contaminated sites. In addition, the verbiage for this credit is not consistent with LEED 2.0/2.1. Requirement of covering 25% of an existing roof belongs under heat island credit for consistency with credit intent and LEED 2.0/2.1. The green space covering provided in this credit is a duplication of what is contained in the heat island credit thus giving 2 credits for the same green roof.

Recommend: Removing verbiage referencing Phase 1 from this credit, and consideration of restoring Brownfield credit. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

28


On the issue of brownfield sites: In the initial Ballot Draft of LEED EB under SS Credit 3, one point will be given for occupying a building on a former brownfield site that has been remmediated. In the initial Ballot Draft of LEED EB under SS Credit 5.2, the language on brownfields will be removed.On the issue of providing a credit green space under this credit, as well as under SS Credit

5.1 and SS Credit 7, which addresses reduced heat islands:This credit intentionally provides a credit for green roof space since urban buildings may have few other green space options. The combination of points available under credits SS Credit 5.1, SS Credit 5.2, and SS Credit 7 are intended to provide strong encouragement for green space on roofs.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.2 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#4Our project site is a combination of building coverage, parking lot, managed turf, natural

vegetation, restored wetlands and stormwater detention ponds that have a normal water level. This credit requires that “25% of the open site area” be native or adapted vegetation. How is the open site area covered by the wetlands and detention ponds to be treated in this calculation?

Recommend that this credit be modified to include ponds or other natural water features as conserved natural areas. The intent of the credit standard is to provide habitat and promote biodiversity. Clearly natural waterways, wetlands and aquatic vegetation do much to promote biodiversity and provide habitat to many species that would not otherwise be accommodated on a dry site. Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

If the restored wetlands and storm water detention ponds are maintained with native or adapted vegetation they would count toward the amount of open area covered by native or adapted vegetation.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C5.2 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#5Our project site is a combination of building coverage, parking lot, managed turf, natural

vegetation, restored wetlands and stormwater detention ponds that have a normal water level. This credit requires that “25% of the open site area” be native or adapted vegetation. How is the open site area covered by the wetlands and detention ponds to be treated in this calculation?

Recommend that this credit be modified to include ponds or other natural water features as conserved natural areas. The intent of the credit standard is to provide habitat and promote biodiversity. Clearly natural waterways, wetlands and aquatic vegetation do much to promote biodiversity and provide habitat to many species that would not otherwise be accommodated on a dry site. Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Yes, ponds, stormwater detention ponds that have a normal water level, natural waterways, wetlands and restored wetlands are considered open area and, if populated with native or adaptive vegetation, these areas can be considered in the calculations used to earn LEED EB credits 5.1 and 5.2.

29


Sustainable Sites, Credit 6: Stormwater Management

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C6.1, 6.2 - QUESTION GROUP 3 - Q#1The Moss Landing Marine Laboratories facility and site is unique. Site restoration and

preservation is essential in that it represents what the facility works for every day. Countless hours have been spent restoring the site to its natural, pre-settlement conditions as well as continually monitoring the preserved dune, marsh, and wetland systems. We will provide substantial documentation on site restoration and preservation. We will provide substantial information directly applicable to the intent of both SS6.1 & SS6.2. We can provide signed statements from specialists stating that any runoff from the roof and parking areas are channeled in a non destructive manner to the marsh and wetlands where this valuable resource will have a much greater benefit then if it were to be absorbed into the natural arid landscape. We can also provide signed statements that the wetlands (natural sediment retention ponds), captures over 80% of the TSS and almost all of the phosphates.

We feel that the intent of each credit is met and exceeded. The difference between our project and the LEED EB credit requirements is in the methods in which they were accomplished. We feel that allowances should be made within credits for alternate proven techniques. Other projects may want to submit under the Innovation Category, however, we do not feel it is necessary to take that path because we meet the intent of these credits. We appreciate comments and request confirmation on this proposed approach.Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

SS 6.1: Taking a system point of view on this project and the area that has been improved, it can been seen as reducing run off by capturing the available water and using it for an environmentally desirable purpose in the local ecosystem. By providing the types of information you describe it appears that you can make the case that you are using this natural system to reduce run off by more that 25 %.Response:

SS6.2: Taking a system point of view on this project and the areas that has been improved, it can been seen as providing or utilizing a natural treatment system to remove suspended solids and total phosphorous from the storm water. By providing the types of information you describe it appears that you can make the case that you are using this natural system to remove more that 80% of suspended solids and to remove more than 40 % of the total phosphorous from the storm water.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C6.1, 6.2 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1We are using our National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water

Construction General Permit as the primary source for our Stormwater Management Plan for all construction. Does that meet the requirements for SS 6.1 & 6.2? Aside from record-keeping, that is. Our understanding is that this is post development, so it applies to the storm water runoff management after development. The BMP's that will be in place after construction is completed. The only way for us to meet this credit criteria is to reduce impervious area and put some BMP's in place that will treat the SW. Correct? Source of Question: Fort Lewis – LEED EB Pilot Participant Response:

30


The baseline for 6.1 is what would be happening with the runoff if any features or measures to reduce the rate and quantity of run off had not been installed. The features or measures initially installed, in combination with any features or measures added since the original construction, need to reduce the rate and quantity of run off by 25%.

The baseline for 6.2 is what would be happening with the runoff if any features or measures to reduce the total suspended solids (TSS) or to reduce the total phosphorous (TS) had not been installed. The features or measures initially installed, in combination with any features or measures added since the original construction, need to reduce the total post construction suspended solids (TSS) by 80% and to reduce the total post construction phosphorous (TS) by 40%.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C6.1, 6.2 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1Because we are a military installation, we have areas in which we have both industrial and

municipal facilities within the same drainage basin. Our building for instance, is in a basin in which we just completed a new treatment facility (sediment and infiltration basin and oil water separator, which treats prior to SW leaving the installation). The treatment facility is approximately one mile from the building, and was designed for the entire basin. We also monitor this outfall and have historical monitoring data from each quarter.First, for credit 6.2, we envisioned utilizing several different BMP's (grass swales, storm drain inserts/tree filter boxes, etc) to meet the post construction treatment criteria. I would like to know if I will be able to factor in the treatment facility. Not as a catch all, but in conjunction with the other BMPs. Source of Question: Fort Lewis – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

If a stormwater treatment facility is used to treat runoff from the building applying for certification, or is part of a campus wide stormwater treatment system that meets the LEED EB 6.1 or 6.2 requirements, it can be used as part of the system for meeting these requirements.

Question – LEED-EB EB PILOT - C6.1 - QUESTION GROUP 15-SS - Q#1:SS 6.1: Stormwater Runoff Reduction -The LEED-NC version of this requirement includes two options: one for projects that have an existing imperviousness of less than 50% and another for projects with an existing imperviousness of more than 50%. The 25% stormwater runoff reduction requirement provided in LEED-EB corresponds to the LEED-NC requirement for sites with greater than 50% existing imperviousness. However, our project's site has less than 50% imperviousness, so can we use the LEED-NC requirements related to these site conditions? (That requirement is to implement a stormwater management plan that prevents the post-development 1.5 year, 24-hour peak discharge rate from exceeding the pre-development discharge rate.)Source of Question: Vineyard 29 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse LEED-EB EB PILOT - C6.1 - QUESTION GROUP 15-SS - Q#1:Since for existing buildings the nature of the pre-construction site circumstances is frequently uncertain, the following approach can be used: (1) Determine the amount of stormwater that falls on the site (2) Determine how much of the stormwater falling on the site is prevented from becoming storm water runoff by the site perviousness and other stormwater runoff reduction measures. If the storm water runoff is reduced by 25% this point will be earned.

31


Sustainable Sites, Credit 7: Reduced Heat Island Effect

Sustainable Sites, Credit 7.1: Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Non-Roof Surfaces

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C7.1 – QUESTIONS GROUP 5 - Q#1Will the USGBC accept a weighted average for the minimum perviousness of 50% for

50% of the parking areas? Our project consists of gravel parking lots for 100% of the parking area. Published research shows gravel to have an imperviousness of 65 – 75%. Using the following calculation method we would qualify for this credit. Please confirm.

Baseline Calculation: (0.5 x 0.5) + (0.5 x 0.95) = 0.73Design Case: (1.0 x 0.7) = 0.7

Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The intent of Credit 7.1 is to reduce heat islands. The contribution that the open grid pervious surfaces can make to reducing heat islands is the potential for the areas in the paving to reduce the amount of low reflective pavement as a result of its open grid structure as well as providing increased perviousness. Since the increase perviousness is not the primary objective of this credit, the average perviousness of gravel parking areas cannot be used to earn this credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - SS-C7.1 - QUESTIONS GROUP 8 - Q#1The requirements for underground parking are not applicable to existing buildings and are

already addressed in LEED 2.0/2.1. Recommend removing underground parking requirements. Credit documentation requirements should also allow a combination of shading & high-albedo material for a minimum of 30% of non roof impervious surface areas for consistency with LEED 2.1. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

In the initial Ballot Draft of LEED EB under SS Credit 7.1, the use of a combination of shading and high-albedo materials will be allowed to meet the requirements of affecting a minimum of 30% of non roof impervious surface areas as allowed in LEED 2.1. The underground parking option will continue to be allowed since this option should be available to existing buildings just as it is available to new buildings under LEED NC 2.1.

LEED EB-Pilot: SS-C7.1 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#3:The Q&A from August 25, 2003, Sustainable Sites Credit 7.1, Q#2 states: "the use of a

combination of shading and high-albedo materials will be allowed to meet the requirements of affecting a minimum of non-roof impervious surface areas as allowed in LEED 2.1." Is this still viable?

In the reference guide it states " use/maintain light-colored/high-albedo materials (reflectance of at least 0.3) for 30% of the site's non-impervious surfaces.” From what scale is this reflectance value taken from and what is it based on? The Color Matters web site that is listed in the ref guide did little to clarify this issue.

32


We have a built up gravel lot that was designed to be impervious. I will provide a CAD detail of the design. Can we use a light color gravel or high-albedo material on the gravel lot to qualify for this credit?

I am currently looking into spray coatings for asphalt or concrete but have had little luck. Please advise. Also, what is the reflectance value of concrete? I cannot find this information. Source of Question: Knoll, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: As stated in response to question EBP-SS-C7.1 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1,the use of a combination of shading and high-albedo materials will be allowed to meet the requirements of affecting a minimum of 30% of non roof impervious surface areas as allowed in LEED NC 2.1.

Reflectance of surfaces is measured using the ASTM Standard E903, referenced in LEED EB. Additional resources for information on the reflectance of materials and reducing heat islands are available on the web at the links below:

American Concrete Pavement Association web site at: www.pavement.com, Tel: 847-966-2272. See R&T Update # 3.05, June 2002, “Albedo: a measurement of Pavement Surface Reflectance,” www.pavement.com/techserv/RT3.05.pdf, for reflectance date and related information.

Sacramento Cool Community Program web site at: www.energy.ca.gov/coolcommunity/strategy/coolpave.html. Provides information on paving types and coatings.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C7.1 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1:We have two areas that are considered wetlands: One is a large detention basin, which

allows a percentage to percolate to the aquifer. In heavy rainfall the detention basin maintains a controlled release to a local stream. The second is a swale that allows a percentage to percolate to the aquifer and in heavy rainfall acts as a detention basin that maintains a controlled release to the larger detention basin.

Does a wetland count as pervious or impervious?Source of Question: Knoll, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Wetlands are pervious surfaces. Wetlands can be part of storm water management systems.

Question - LEED-EB PILOT- SS-C7.1 - Question Group 15 - Q#1:In Section 7: Strategies/Technologies in the paragraph titled "Paving Materials" it uses gravel and pavement interchangeably. Is this accurate? Because the ASTM standard sited does not test non-flat surfaces. If so, can we perform a field test on white stone for our stone parking lot to evaluate it's solar reflectance? We would of course submit our findings so your OK before moving forward.Source of Question: Knoll, Inc. Response - LEED-EB PILOT- SS-C7.1 - Question Group 15 - Q#1:USGBC staff is not aware of any aggregate that meets the reflectance requirement in SSc7.1 for non-roof surfaces.

33

http://www.energy.ca.gov/coolcommunity/strategy/coolpave.html

http://www.pavement.com/techserv/RT3.05.pdf

http://www.pavement.com/techserv/RT3.05.pdf


Question – LEED-EB PILOT – SS 7.1- QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:

I am reading over the clarifications released this January, specifically Response (EBP-G13-ss-C7.1-Q1). For reflectance of surfaces it says to use the ASTM Standard E903 but in the Reference Guide it sites standard E408. Which is it?Source of Question: Knoll Inc. – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response (LEED-EB PILOT – SS 7.1- QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1)The reflectance is tested using ASTM Standard E903 and the emissivity is tested using the ASTM Standard E408.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 7.2: Landscape & Exterior Design to Reduce Heat Islands, Roof Surfaces

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C7.2 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#1Proving the requirements for this credit was a subject of concern brought up in the October

1, 2002, teleconference. We too have had no luck verifying an initial or three year-aged reflectance value. The manufacturer of the roofing material does not have testing data. Has the USGBC or any of the Pilot participants come up with a solution to this? According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Cool Roofing Materials Database, the roof materials solar reflectance of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories would fall somewhere between 0.74 and 0.53. We do not know how to prove or estimate an initial or three-year solar reflectance value. Any strategies or assistance for this credit would be appreciated.Source of Question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The requirements for low slope roofs (for slopes equal to or less than 2:12) are: initial reflectance of at least 0.65 and a 3 year aged reflectance of at least 0.9 plus an emissivity of at least 0.9. It is recommended that you test the reflectance and the emissivity using the cited standards: ASTM E903-96 for reflectance and ASTM E408-71 for emissivity.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C7.2 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1We forwarded specifications on our roofing material for SS credit 7.2 several weeks ago. I

was browsing through the web site and discovered the following statement in the NC credit interpretation guide: "The project can refer to the Lawrence Berkeley Labs web site, http://eande.lbl.gov/coolroof/membrane as a reference source for the reflectivity of white gravel.” On the web site, I found a listing for 'white coated gravel on BUR.’ Is this an acceptable resource for submission for SS 7.2? Source of Question: Nike – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

To earn credit 7.2, the roofing material in place needs to meet the following specified reflectance and emittance requirements: “Provide third party documentation and photographs highlighting roofing materials that are Energy Star labeled, with a minimum initial reflectance of 0.65, and a minimum three year-aged reflectance of 0.5 and a minimum emissivity of 0.9. Include area calculations demonstrating that the roofing material covers a minimum of 75% of the total roof area, AND Provide records and results of quarterly inspections to determine if these features

34

http://eande.lbl.gov/coolroof/membrane


are being maintained.” On the referenced web site we found: “White-coated gravel on BUR | Solar Reflectance = 0.65 | Infrared Emittance = 0.9 | Reagan.” This shows that the gravel on a built up roof, with the particular white coating, met the LEED EB SS 7.2 requirements for reflectance and emissivity.

For the roof on your building, the reflectance and emittance would need to be measured and demonstrated to be above the required “minimum initial reflectance” of 0.65, and a minimum three year-aged reflectance of 0.5 and a minimum emissivity of 0.9.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 8: Light Pollution Reduction

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C8 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1 There was a renovation done to the exterior of Byron Rogers a year ago. We are going to

determine if it meets the Light Pollution Reduction credit. However, being a courthouse that must have the lights on all the time due to security reasons, we cannot turn off the lights at night to check illuminance levels. Will this exception be permitted? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

It is proposed that when LEED EB is revised to prepare the initial ballot draft it will adopt an operation oriented version of the LEED for NC 2.1 language for Sustainable Sites, Credit 8: Light Pollution Reduction. Under the new language for this credit, turning off the lights is not required for the preparation of the documentation.

The revised version of SS Credit 8 for LEED EB will be as follows:

IntentEliminate light trespass from the building and site, improve the night sky access and reduce development impact on nocturnal environments.

RequirementsMeet or provide lower light levels and uniformity ratios than those recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Recommended Practice Manual: Lighting for Exterior Environments (RP-33-99). Design exterior lighting such that all exterior luminaires with more that 1000 initial lamp lumens are shielded and all luminaires with more than 3500 initial lamp lumens meet Full Cutoff ISENA Classification. The maximum candela value of all interior lighting shall fall within the building (not out through the windows) and the maximum candela value of all exterior lighting shall fall within the property. Any luminaire within a distance of 2.5 times its mounting height from the property line shall have shielding such that no light from the luminaire crosses the property boundary.

SubmittalsLight Pollution Reduction

Provide a brief exterior lighting system narrative describing the lighting objectives and the measures taken to meet the requirements, AND

35

http://EandE.LBL.gov/CoolRoof/ref_01.htm


Provide records and results of quarterly inspections to determine if these requirements continue to be maintained.

Potential Technologies and StrategiesAdopt site lighting criteria to maintain safe lighting levels while avoiding off-site lighting and night sky pollution. Minimize state lighting where possible and model the site lighting using a computer model. Technologies to reduce light pollution include full cutoff luminaires, low-reflectance surfaces and low-angle spotlights.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C8 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1SS Credit 8 states: compliance path OR ‘ maintain existing lighting at or below nighttime

ambient levels 15 feet from the building exterior AND deign/maintain exterior lighting such that zero direct-beam illumination leaves the building site. Does ‘building lighting’ exclude municipality-required streetlights within 15 feet of the building exterior? Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

See response above and the following answer. If the building owner is required by the city, county or other government requirements to provide street lights, these lights need to meet the IESNA Full Cutoff Classification and restrict or eliminate light trespass off the property to the extent this is possible.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C8 - QUESTION GROUP 6 - Q#1Is it required to turn off all of the building interior perimeter lights as well as the exterior

lights while taking the light level measurement? Who is determined to have been commissioned in the building to have been provided records and quarterly inspections required? Source of Question: Ada County, ID – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

See the response to a question on Sustainable Sites, Credit 8: Light Pollution Reduction in Group 5 which provides a more straight forward path to earning this credit based on the LEED for New Construction 2.1 version of this credit. The quarterly inspections can be carried out by someone on the building owners staff or someone else.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C8 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#4The Knoll Inc., Lubin building property borders other Knoll properties on two sides. We

have light that trespasses onto these properties from Lubin exterior security lighting. Must we include Knoll to Knoll light trespass in our scope?

We raise this question because we have lighting that reside inside the Lubin property line but illuminates an area adjacent to the property line but is still on Knoll property. The area adjacent to the property line is a high security area, containing large propane tanks that must be illuminated at all times.

How must we consider this issue?Source of Question: Knoll, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

36


The light falling on other contiguous Knoll properties would not be considered light trespass. The light falling off of Knoll properties would be considered light trespass.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C8 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#5SS Credit 8-Light Pollution. I think I understand what we are supposed to do here; I just

need some clarification. There seems to be some contradictions between the Rating System and the Reference Guide. The Reference Guide shows a table of brightness factors for both pre and post curfew times while the reference guide just mentions taking light levels with lights on and off. For example, at Janssen, there is a 10:00 pm curfew whereby all the parking lights must be turned off. The only exceptions here are a few security lights around the building and any parking lights that must be on for safety reasons. Most of the interior lights are off at this time as well. Our plan is to take light level readings before 10:00 pm while most of the exterior and interior lights are on and after 10:00 pm when most of the exterior lights are off and some of the interior lights are on. Both times, the readings will be taken 15 feet away from the building. We will then compare these readings with the pre and post curfew brightness factors found in the reference guide and ensure that our light levels meet the requirements. Is this an acceptable approach? At the same time, we will ensure the other requirements of the credit are met, namely shielding on all exterior fixtures, cut-offs for brighter fixtures and no direct beam illumination leaving the site.Source of Question: Janssen Pharmaceutica via Johnson Controls Inc – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

This approach would be acceptable. The approach described in the comment draft of LEED-EB would also be acceptable.

Sustainable Sites, Credit 9: Green Site and Building Exterior Management

Sustainable Sites, Credit 9.1, Green Site and Building Exterior Management Overall

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C9.1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1The main surrounding landscape in a downtown urban environment is other buildings,

streets and sidewalks. Can I assume that a facility would get credit if it is externally maintained in an environmentally friendly manner? For example, exterior cleaning is managed to reduce pollutants, the exterior is coated with materials that minimize the need to use paint. Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

For the LEED EB Pilot:(1) In the initial filing for certification, provide an “Operating Plan for Minimizing the

Environmental Impacts of Building Site and Building Exterior Management.” This plan needs to include:(a) A description of the environmental impacts of the current approach, (b) A description of actions are already being taken to reduce the environmental impacts of

these activities, AND (c) A description of planned additional actions that will be implemented to further reduce the

environmental impacts of these activities. (2) In the performance data filing provide the following documentation:

37


(a) Documentation that your Operating Plan for Minimizing the Environmental Impacts of Building Site and Building Exterior Management has been implemented.

(b) Documentation of all of the types of chemicals used for building site and building exterior management, the purpose each is being used for and the amounts of each used. The chemicals would include: pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer, ice removal chemicals, cleaning compounds and other chemicals used in building site and building exterior management

The Operating Plan for Minimizing the Environmental Impacts of Building Site and Building Exterior Management should include each of the following where applicable:1. Roof Maintenance: Conduct regular inspections of the roof for debris, unplanned

vegetation or damage and remove any debris or unplanned vegetation and repair any damage. In inspections pay particular attention to roof drains, flashings and penetrations. These activities reduce the likelihood of building damage or major roof repair and the associated environmental impacts.

2. Parking Garage Maintenance: Regularly sweep parking areas and stairwells to reduce the tracking of dirt into buildings.

3. Sidewalk and Maintenance: Regularly sweep sidewalks, decks and paved pedestrian areas to reduce the tracking of dirt into buildings.

4. Grounds Keeping:a. Minimize the use of fertilizer by only applying fertilizer based on soil testing so the

fertilizer is tailored to meet the actual nutrient needs of the soil. Document the soil testing results and the types and amounts of fertilizer used.

b. Minimize the use of herbicides and pesticides. Document actions taken to minimize the use of herbicides, pesticides and other chemicals

5. Snow Removal and Ice RemovalProvide timely snow removal to help prevent the formation of ice and to reduce the amount of chemicals needed for ice removal.

6. List of Other Actions Being Implemented

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C9.1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#2The statement in the requirements for this credit, “Reduce impacts on local environments.”

This is very vague. Some clarification as to what the USGBC means by this would be quite helpful. Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

See response to LEED EB SS-C9.1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1 (Check the number of the Q being referenced)

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C9.1 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#1We have a question regarding inspection records. What is the USGBC’s stance on

quarterly records for the Pilot Process? We propose to insert a comment in the narrative of each appropriate credit stating that the plan in reference is still in effect. Would this be acceptable? Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

For LEED EB Certification:

38


(1) An initial filing should be made when you are ready to start collecting performance data. This initial filing should include all the information required for a LEED EB Filing except the performance data.

(2) Once the performance data has been collected, a filing of the performance data should be made. This filing of performance data should include all the performance documentation specified in the LEED EB standard.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C9.1 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1The requirement to establish/maintain site and building exterior to reduce impacts on local

environments is vague & unclear. What is the metric? More definition and guidelines are required. Is providing wildlife food, drinking/bathing water all that is being required to obtain the 1st credit?Recommend: Pilot program participants be asked to provide recommended metric for both parts of this credit. We will forward our recommendations under separate cover. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

See response to LEED EB SS-C9.1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1

Sustainable Sites, Credit 9.2: Low Impact Site and Building Exterior Chemical/Fertilizer/Pest Management Plan

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C9.2 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1The requirement to establish/maintain site and building exterior to reduce impacts on local

environments is vague & unclear. What is the metric? More definition and guidelines are required. Is providing wildlife food, drinking/bathing water all that is being required to obtain the 1st credit?Recommend: Pilot program participants be asked to provide recommended metric for both parts of this credit. We will forward our recommendations under separate cover. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

See response to LEED EB SS-C9.1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – SS-C9.2 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1Question on Clarification of SS Credit 9.1-9.2 In IEQ Credit 5.6 it defines Least Toxic

Pesticides, but in SS Credit 9.1-9.2 there is not a definition of least toxic pesticides for grounds/site/building exterior management.

Are we to follow the LTP definition from the IEQ Credit 5.6?Also, is LEED working on definitions for fertilizers, and herbicides?

Source of Question: Knoll, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Here is guidance on four of the topics addressed by SS credit 9.1 & 9.2

1. Green Policy for Fertilizer Use:a. Take soils samples and have these analyzed at least once every two years to determine how

much and what kind of fertilizer to apply.

39


b. Do not apply more than 250 lbs. per acre of Nitrogen active ingredient at one timec. Nitrogen fertilizer should be coated with a time-release substance such as SCU (sulfur

coated urea) or some other industry approved substance. This will insure that the plant will have an adequate source of nitrogen over a longer period of time. This will also diminish nitrogen waste due to irrigation or natural rainfall.

d. Do not apply Nitrogen fertilizer more than 3 times a year. e. Several light applications of nitrogen fertilizer (about 200 pounds per acre active

ingredient) at 8 to 10 week intervals are recommended. In native species plantings this may not be necessary unless soils are extremely poor. This equates to about a handful of commercial fertilizer spread around the base of each small tree.

f. Spread nitrogen fertilizer where it is needed by plants rather than broadcast fertilizing a whole area (say, large mulched areas). Target fertilizers around the rooting zone or base of specific plants as much as possible. Fertilizing where plants are not growing just enhances weed production. Do not apply nitrogen fertilizer during the dormant season except in early spring, just weeks before spring foliage growth is expected to begin.

g. Make use of native plants and mulches to reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizer use after the first year of landscape establishment.

2. Snow Removal and Deicing Policya. Reduce the Need for Chemical Usage

Removing snow and ice from sidewalks and roadways is an important health and safety issue that can have significant environmental impacts depending on the ice melting chemicals used. Common ice melters include: ammonium sulfate, urea (nitrogen fertilizer), sodium chloride (rock salt), calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, potassium chloride, potassium acetate and calcium magnesium acetate.

Ice melters should be used to break the bond between ice and the road surface so that ice and snow and can be physically removed by shovel or plow. An application of a liquid anti-icing agent may be considered where it is especially important to prevent ice from forming or where the use of an ice melting chemical is not possible.

Where occupant and visitor movement and building materials permit, closing redundant stairways, sidewalks, and roads during the winter season can reduce the area that must be cleared of snow and ice.

By closing redundant stairways and sidewalks, maintenance staff can focus efforts to better clear snow from necessary areas and use de-icing chemicals over a smaller surface area.

Keep the weather in mind. A light, powdery snow may not require a de-icing chemical, just shoveling or sweeping. If freezing rain, wet, heavy snow, or sleet are expected, apply an ice melter before precipitation begins to maximize its effectiveness.

b. Mechanical Removal Improve mechanical removal strategies by increasing the frequency of shoveling,

brushing, or plowing and increasing the amount of equipment in use. The use of de-icing chemicals can be reduced by preventing the formation of ice after

snow falls. Removing snow in a timely fashion using shovels, snow blowers or plows before it is

compacted by traffic can reduce the need for de-icing chemicals. When manual shoveling is used, ensure that workers are adequately protected from the cold and using

40


appropriate techniques to eliminate back and other potential injuries. When mechanical equipment is utilized, make sure that equipment is well maintained to minimize environmental impacts such as leaking gas, oil, or lubricant. Workers operating mechanical equipment should have access to safety goggles and ear protection.

c. Chemical Considerations Use potassium chloride or magnesium chloride ice melting products instead of sodium

chloride or calcium chloride. Switch from sodium and calcium chloride products to potassium and magnesium chloride products. While all chlorides may be toxic to vegetation if used in large quantities, potassium and magnesium chloride products are less damaging to plants, concrete, carpeting and hard surface flooring. Apply chemical deicing compounds with a spreader (or sprayer for liquids) to minimize the amount of product used and ensure a uniform application.

3. Low Environmental Impact Pest Management Policya. Provide a copy of the low environmental impact pest management policy adopted by your

organization. b. The plan shall promote safer alternatives to chemical pesticides while preventing economic

and health damage caused by pests. The plan shall implement the use of integrated pest management techniques to reduce the need for reliance on chemical pesticides. When pesticides may be necessary, the plan shall ensure that clear and accurate notification concerning the use of pesticides be made available so that measures may be taken to prevent and address pest problems effectively without endangering occupants, janitorial workers or visitors. The plan should address:

integrated methods; site or pest inspections; pest population monitoring; an evaluation of the need for pest control; and, one or more pest control methods, including sanitation, structural repairs,

mechanical and living biological controls, other non-chemical methods, and, if nontoxic options are unreasonable and have been exhausted, a least toxic pesticide.

c. The plan shall include a communication strategy to provide notification of the integrated pest management system. This shall include information and notice to tenants or directly to occupants in an owner occupied building. The notice shall include a description of the integrated pest management system and a list of all pesticides, including any least toxic pesticide, that may be used in the building as part of the integrated pest management system; the name, address, and telephone number of the contact person of the building; and a statement that the contact person maintains the product label and material safety data sheet (MSDS) of each pesticide used by the building, that the label or MSDS is available for review upon request, and that the contact person is available for information and comment. The communications strategy shall address “Universal Notification” which requires

that not less than 72 hours before a pesticide, other than a least toxic pesticide, is applied in a building or on surrounding grounds that the building maintains.

d. The plan shall address under what circumstances an emergency application of pesticides in a building or on surrounding grounds being maintained by the building can be conducted

41


without complying with the earlier provisions. In addition, the plan shall address notification strategies to insure that occupants and janitorial workers are notified within 24 hours of the pesticide application.

e. Provide documentation that the Low Environmental Impact Pest Management Policy has been followed during the performance period.

5. HerbicidesUse an integrated pest management approach following the standard for animal pests.

42


Section 2: Water Use and Water Efficiency

Water Use and Water Efficiency, Prerequisite 1: Minimum Water Efficiency

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Would it be acceptable to adopt a policy to retrofit the water closets during renovation of

an area or floor of the building, or obtain credit for installing sensor technology at the sinks, soap dispensers, and water closets? Currently we are in the process of installing sensor technology throughout the facility. Analysis of the water closet replacements shows a high capital expense with little return on investment due to the relatively low cost of water & sewer charges is our area. Source of Question: Johnson & Johnson Headquarters - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

No, having a policy in place does not meet this prerequisite. What is needed to meet this prerequisite is to have building water usage below the calculated baseline. The LEED EB Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1 requires that a building water use baseline be determined by calculating how much water the building would be expected to use if 90% of the buildings plumbing fixtures were replaced with fixtures that meet the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements. The LEED EB Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1 requires that the building water usage be less than this baseline water usage. It does not require the replacement of fixtures – how the water usage is reduced to below the baseline is up to the building owner/occupant. Adding or installing sensor technology at the sinks, soap dispensers, and water closets is a good example of how water usage can be reduced without replacing the fixtures. For some toilets it may be possible to replace the diaphragm in the flush valve to reduce water usage without replacing the fixtures. There are many other water use reduction options. This LEED EB Water Efficiency Prerequisite, and Water Efficiency Credit 3 are based on water efficiency performance, i.e. how much water is used relative to the calculated baseline. This prerequisite and credit do not specify how to achieve water efficiency – that is left up to the building owner/occupant.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#2“Reduce /maintain water usage to a water use baseline that would result from outfitting

90% of the total building fixture count with plumbing fixtures that meet the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements.” Can you please elaborate on the “methodology guidance” that will be outlined in the reference guide? It is difficult to respond to the “test drive” without more information. How do we calculate this baseline? We are assuming the methodology and calculations will be similar to that of LEED 2.0 WE Credit 3. The LEED 2.0 Reference Guide lists the standard GPM and GPF for fixtures that meet the 1992 requirements, but in order to calculate the baseline, we would need standard numbers for the remaining 10% of the fixtures. Our building was built in 1996 and therefore 100% of its fixtures meet the 1992 requirements, so in our calculations, we would need to input numbers corresponding to the GPM and GPF of pre-1992 fixtures. What values should be used for the 10% of inefficient (prior to 1992) fixtures in the calculations? What is the intent behind the 90% versus 100% of the fixtures complying with the 1992 fixture performance requirements? Is it so the prerequisite will not be unattainable for older buildings? Source of Question: Liberty Centre, Ashforth Pacific - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

43


For the purpose of calculating the water usage baseline, assume that the fixtures for the remaining 10% of the fixtures use 3 times as much water as the water usage stated for the 1992 Energy Policy Act (EPACT) compliant fixtures. The estimate that pre-EPACT fixtures used about 3 times the water as EPACT compliant fixtures is based on the January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 EPACT maximum water usage for commercial toilets (3.5 gallons per flush) divided by the post January 1, 1997 EPACT compliance water usage for commercial toilets (1.6 gallon per flush). The result is rounded up to reflect greater water usage of commercial toilets prior to January 1, 1994. Typical pre-EPACT 1992 toilet water usage ranged from 3.5 to 7.0 gallons per flush.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1Many buildings will have irrigation and building water on the same meter. What is

suggested documentation strategy in that case, or is a submeter required? Or, is acceptable to subtract an approximate irrigation load (determined from summer vs. winter bill comparison) from the monthly bills? Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

Sub-metering is the preferred method for gathering this data. If another approach is used it needs to be justified.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#1All of the fixtures within Moss Landing Marine Laboratories comply with the referenced

standard. The primary function of the building is a research facility. The facility uses a considerable amount of water that is considered a ‘process load.’ The building is equipped with one water meter, combining both process and domestic loads. This makes it impossible to compare water meter data to the calculated baseline. We propose to submit cut sheets and baseline calculations as proof of compliance to this prerequisite. We can submit water meter data, however the information contained in the data would be irrelevant. Due to the importance of prerequisites in the LEED EB application, we request confirmation from the USGBC on this proposed approach. Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

This prerequisite can be met by providing documentation that 90% or more of each type of affected plumbing fixtures meet the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture requirements. For the purposes of tracking water usage and for guiding water usage reductions, it would be useful to explore what options are available for separately metering the water for: (a) the standard plumbing fixtures, (b) the process water usage, and (c) the irrigation water usage.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#5Submittal requirement states: "Provide quarterly and annual water meter data for water use

inside the building showing that the annual water use is equal to or less than the calculated baseline." How is the water use baseline calculated? Where can I obtain a copy of the formula used to calculate this baseline?Source of Question: Ada County, ID – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

44


Calculation of the Baseline Water Usage: The base line water usage for a building is calculated as follows:1. Create a spreadsheet listing each water-using plumbing fixture and frequency of use data.

Frequency of use data includes the number of female and male daily uses, the duration of use, and the water volume per use. Assumptions to use in these baseline calculations: Female building occupants are assumed to use water closets three times a day. Male occupants are assumed to use water closets one a day and urinals twice a day. All occupants are assumed to use lavatories of each restroom use for 15 seconds. If there are showers in the building they are assumes to each be used 8 times a day with each shower lasting 5 minutes. Use Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) fixture flow rates for each fixture type in the baseline case (See Table 1). With these values, calculate the total potable water used for each fixture type and gender (see Equation 1).Equation 1:Potable Water Use [gal] = Uses x Duration [min or flushes] x Water Volume [gal]/Use [min or flush]

2. Sum all of the water volumes used for each fixture type to obtain male and female total daily potable water use.

3. Multiply male and female potable water volumes by the number of male and female building occupants and sum these volumes to obtain the daily total potable water use volume (see Equation 2).Equation 2:Daily Potable Water Volume [gal] = Male Occupants x Male Sewage Generation [gal] + Female Occupants x Female Sewage Generation [gal]

4. Multiply total daily potable water volume by the number of workdays in a typical year to obtain the total annual potable water volume use for the building. (see Equation 3).Equation 3:Total Potable Water Use [gal] = Water Use [gal]/Occupant Day [day] x Occupants x Workdays/Year – Annual Graywater or Rainwater Harvest [gal]

5. Multiply the total annual potable water volume use for the building in calculated in 4 above by 120 % to get the baseline potable water usage.

Table 1: Energy Policy Act of 1992 Standards for Plumbing Fixture Water UsageFixture Energy Policy Act of 1992

Standards for Plumbing Fixture Water UsageWater Closets (GPF) 1.6Urinals (GPF) 1.0

45


Shower Heads (GPM) 2.5Faucets (GPF) 2.5Replacement Aerators 2.5Metering Faucets (gal/CY) 0.25

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 9 - Q#6This credit requires to reduce/maintain water usage to a water use baseline that would

result from outfitting 90% of the total building fixture count with plumbing fixtures that meet the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture performance requirements. The Technologies/Strategies section of this credit discusses developing a water-use baseline that includes ALL water consuming fixtures, equipment and seasonal conditions. It recommends installing plumbing fixtures that meet EPACT 1992 fixture requirements in combination with ultra high efficiency of dry fixture and control technologies. This credit further recommends installing high efficiency equipment such as dishwashers, cooling towers, laundries, etc.

What this credit does not address is whether the process equipment water use should be included in the water use baseline or if specifying high efficiency equipment is sufficient.

A similar question was submitted for a LEED Credit Interpretation: The response was that “This credit requires listing fixtures that are necessary for the occupancy of the building, such as for drinking water and conveying sewage. The Technical Advisory Committed agrees that the cooling tower and dishwasher water loads are process loads, and are not required to be included in the calculations.” (LEED NC Inquiry ID # 0307-Wec31-051702, dated 5-17-02).

Does this LEED interpretation also apply to the LEED EB credit? If so, additional water meters would need to be installed on each process load and subtracted from the interior water usage meter to compare an accurate baseline water usage with just those fixtures governed by EPACT 1992.

If the LEED interpretation does not apply, please provide direction on how to include the process load water usage into the building water usage calculation. (Group 9)Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

Yes, this LEED EB credit is following the LEED NC Credit interpretation Inquiry ID # 0307-Wec31-051702, dated 5-17-02. See also, LEED EB answers to questions: LEED EB-Pilot: WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#3 (Check number of Q being referenced), LEED EB-Pilot: WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#4(Check number of Q being referenced). As stated in the answer to question LEED EB-Pilot: WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1, sub-metering is the preferred method for separating the fixture water usage from the process water usage and from the irrigation water usage. If another approach is used it needs to be justified.

Since LEED EB does not address reducing process water loads, a demonstration of high efficiency of water use for process loads could be proposed as a possible innovation credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#7Looking at the water usage of the CCI Center today, calculating the baseline usage, etc.,

we used the current number of full-time employees in the building as the number of occupants,

46

Integral toilet and sink combination-units with push-button controls minimize vandalism and promote water conservation in correctional facilities.


and were alarmed to discover that the building's actual usage exceeds the baseline as we calculated it. We are wondering if there is a precedentfor calculating an average number of visitors, interns, and other flux employees. We conduct several tours, workshops and large meetings in the building every month, which substantially contributes to our water usage. Can you advise us?Source of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

The water use baseline is calculated using the average number of full time equivalent building occupants, based on full time occupants, plus the full time equivalent of the visitors to the building. It is suggested that water use reduction measures be explored to reduce water usage.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1The calculation methodology outlined in the LEED EB reference guide for the water

efficiency prerequisite is designed around a typical office use environment and assumptions of male and female water use during the workday. The calculation methodology and use assumptions are not applicable to an incarceration facility such as a county jail because of the 24/7 operation of the facility, usually full occupancy of the available cell space, and continually changing male/female ratio.

This prerequisite will preclude this incarceration facility from becoming LEED-EB certified based upon the normal and designed use of the facility. The Jackson County Jail LEED EB Pilot Project has been investigating alternatives to reduce water usage within the facility that will permit moving forward in the LEED certification process.

The plumbing equipment used in the Jackson County Jail and other incarceration facilities is typically engineered to prevent any component from being used as a weapon or as a method of facilitating suicide or injury to an inmate. The plumbing fixtures are usually integrated into the structure and are often combination toilet/sink units. The Jackson County Jail has the Acorn 1415 Combo units as seen in the photo on the right. Stainless steel has become the material of choice for these fixtures as it has an extremely long service life and is difficult to damage.

The toilets are engineered for a specific flush rate to avoid plugging and flooding issues and retrofitting these toilets to a lower GPF flush valve is not an option, verifiable by contacting the manufacturers of these toilets. The expense of the cell plumbing fixtures represents a major investment and makes the replacement of the units to a lower GPF fixture impractical considering the long expected useful life.

Jackson County has been investigating an engineered solution to water conservation that would allow the continued use of the existing 1415 Combo units. This solution involves installing a Sloan computerized flow control system that limits the amount of times that the toilets may be flushed within a fixed time period. The system would allow the monitoring of the flush attempts and lockout multiple flush attempts to avoid cell flooding. The system is a conservation measure as well as a

47


control measure to avoid the damage that flooding incurs as well as a method to track inmate attempts to flood cells by flushing sheets or clothing down the toilets.

The computerized water control system by Sloan is presently installed in incarceration facilities across the country as both a conservation and control method to better manage water use and the population of the facilities. The Jackson County Jail management team has met with the Sloan Company to document the facility plumbing layout and the material/labor cost for the installation of the computerized water management system.

Information about the control system the Jackson County Jail is considering may be found at http://www.sloanvalve.com/pwt/controllers.asp. This site has .pdf files that explain the type of control the jail is considering. The Sloan web site is www.sloanvalve.com.

LEED 2.0 for new construction has no water efficiency prerequisite but a credit point for a 20% reduction is water use from a calculated baseline. As an incarceration facility has an ever changing population, variable male/female ratio, and a documented high water use per inmate, an actual metered baseline to establish water use appears to be more realistic than a static calculation methodology. This letter is a request that the USGBC review the water efficiency prerequisite as it pertains to incarceration facilities and consider a 15%-20% reduction of water use from a baseline utility metered water use for a facility compared to the utility metered water use after conservation measures.

Should the existing building water efficiency prerequisite calculation methodology remain as presented in the EB Reference guide, the Jackson County Jail Pilot Project will not meet this prerequisite. Please advise us concerning this prerequisite as it applies to an incarceration facility. The Jackson County Jail pilot project is very committed to be the first LEED-EB jail in the country and this is evidenced by the continued commitment to the LEED EB process.Source of Question: Jackson County Jail – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The LEED EB Committee proposes to establish a different minimum water efficiency standard and different standards for earning water efficiency points for incarceration facilities. The LEED EB Committee would appreciate any information and resources on water use in incarceration facilities that this project can provide to support the development of LEED EB standards for water use in incarceration facilities.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 15- Q#1:

Will the following meet requirements for Water Use and Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1 for Minimum Water Efficiency?

This building houses office and retail space. Calculations have been conducted to separate the retail tenant process water usage and the building systems (cooing towers, humidifiers, fire pump flow tests, landscape irrigation, etc.) from the occupancy-based water usage (basically the restrooms). After initial calculations were completed, temporary, portable flow meters were installed and logged to validate and correct the calculations. The attached calculations indicate the flow measurement results and the calculations. We believe the calculations combined with the flow measurements have produced a fairly accurate picture of water usage in the facility.

Water is used in the building by restroom groups and process uses. The process uses are subtracted from the building meter readings to obtain the restroom usage. Some of the process uses are calculations, some are sub-meter readings taken for intervals of time, and some are combinations of both.

48

http://www.sloanvalve.com/

http://www.sloanvalve.com/pwt/controllers.asp


The process uses are listed on the Spread sheet Calculation: “Water Use Calculation” in the Appendix (WE-P1). The building water meter readings are also imbedded in the calculation worksheet.

The building was built and occupied in 1980 and the fixtures pre-date EPACT 1992. The existing restroom fixtures use 3.5 GPF for water closets, 1.5 GPF for urinals, and most have push-down metering faucets at the lavatories.

The LEED EB WE-P1 calculation is included in the table “Calculated Water Use Baseline (USGBC LEED EB Method)” Appendix (WE-P1) and shows an allowance for the restrooms of 4,289,965 gallons per year. The calculated actual usage is 6,747,271 gallons per year, thus the required water savings are 2,457,306 gallons per year.

In order to achieve the required savings, 205 female and 34 male water closets will be replaced with low-flow (1.6 GPF) fixtures and the flush valve will be retrofitted based on the results of a mock-up test conducted on four floors of the building. In addition, 88 urinals will have the flush valve replaced with low-flow (1.0 GPF) kits based on the results of the mock-up test. Also, conversion of 33% of the lavatories (a quantity of 149) to hands-free faucets has just been completed. The calculated savings from these measures (calculated in the spread sheet in the Appendix) is 2,471,673 gallons per year.

As of October, 2003, faucets on 20 of the building’s 66 floors have been replaced with hands-free fixtures.

Table 2: Calculated Allowable Water Use Baseline (USGBC LEED EB Method)

Flush Daily Flowrate Duration Auto Occupants WaterFixture Uses (GPF) (Flush) Controls *2 Use

EPAct 1996

NA (Gal)

Conventional Water Closet (Male)

1 1.6 1 900 1,440

Conventional Water Closet (Female)

3 1.6 1 1,350 6,480

Flush Valve Urinal (Male)

2 1 1 900 1,800

Conventional Urinal (Female)

1 1 1,350

Flow Daily Flowrate Duration Auto Occupants WaterFixture Uses (GPM) (Sec) Controls Use

EPAct 1996

NA (Gal)

49


Conventional Lavatory

3 2.5 15

Metering Lavatory 3 0.25 per cycle 2,250 1,688Kitchen sink 1 2.5 15 2,250 1,406Shower *4 64 2.5 300 800Drinking Fountains

Total Daily volume

(Gal)

13,614

Annual Work Days

*1

263

TOTAL ANNUAL VOLUME

(GAL)

3,574,971

Multiply by 120%

1.2

Calculated Water Use

Baseline (Gal/Year)

4,289,965

Allowable per person

per year:

1,907

Notes:1. Saturday counted as 5% of a work day based on 10% occupancy for 1/2

day.2. Occupancy breakdown 40% male, 60% female3. Total # of tenants/occupants: 3,000. Average occupancy: 2,2504. 8 showers, 8 uses per day = 64

Will this approach meeting the requirements of the LEED-EB WE prerequisite 1?

Response - LEED-EB PILOT - WE-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 15- Q#1:-

50


Under the LEED-EB Pilot calculations of fixture water use can be used to meet the requirements of WEp1 and to earn points under WE credit 3.1 and 3.2. The two steps that need to be carried out are (1) Do the baseline water use calculations assuming all fixtures are EPACT compliant and multiplying the resulting calculated annual water use by 120%. (You have carried out this baseline water use calculation in the Table 2, submitted in the spreadsheet along with the credit interpretation request.) (2) Determine the calculated post upgrade the water use by redoing the water use calculations using the rated water of the actual fixtures in the building once all the upgrades are in place. (3) If the calculated post upgrade fixture water use is less than the calculated baseline water use from Step one the prerequisite is met. (4) Calculate the difference between the calculated baseline water from Step 1 and the calculated post upgrade fixture water use and divide by the calculated baseline water use to get the percentage reduction. The percentage reduction determines how many points will be earned under Wec3.1-3.2.

Also, doing the analysis of the fixture water use using the available and estimates metering of the various types of water use in the building is an important part of making sure that over time the actual water use of the building is being driven down.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT – Water P1- QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:1. We contend that plumbing commissioning should be treated differently for an existing building vs. a new building. Typically a pressure test is the most accepted manner in which to commission plumbing in a restroom on a new building. We do not believe that this is a prudent approach for existing buildings. Our concern is that running a pressure test on an older plumbing system may cause leaks that would not have otherwise occurred. We believe that there should be three key areas of concern/benchmarking in an existing building like ours:a. Document Water Efficiency ~ usage currently benchmarked and improvement developed over time.b. Reduce Water Leakage ~ in existing supply and waste piping with no leaks as the goal.c. Reduce Odor Leakage ~ in existing waste and waste stacks with no leaks as the goal

Our suggested Plumbing Commissioning approach is as follows:1. Calculate water flow per existing device to establish the necessary benchmark to measure improvement over the next five years. This will accommodate ~a~ as noted above.2. Utilize Infrared Thermography (which detects temperature difference up to 0.0~C) to detect water leakage and thus satisfy ~b~ as noted above.3. Conduct a Chemical Survey with Photo Ionization Equipment to detect the presence of 4-500 different chemicals down to one part per billion to detect odor leaks and therefore satisfy ~c~ as noted above. Source of Question: General Dynamics – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response LEED-EB PILOT – Water P1 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1To meet LEED-EB WE prerequisite 1 requirements, it must be shown by measurements or by calculations that fixture water use does not exceed the calculated baseline for fixture water use. The calculated baseline fixture water use is 120% of the water use that would occur if all the fixtures were EPACT compliant. Pressure testing of plumbing is not required to meet LEED-EB WE prerequisite 1 requirements. Using Infrared Thermography to detect temperature differences that may indicate water leakage seems like a good technique for helping to reduce water usage but

51


is not required. Conducting a chemical survey with photo ionization equipment to detect the presence of different chemicals down to one part per billion as a way to detect odor leaks from plumbing seems like a good technique for this purpose, but this is not required to meet LEED-EB WE prerequisite 1 requirements.

Water Use and Water Efficiency, Prerequisite 2: Discharge Water Compliance

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1On NPDES permit compliance, is it correct to assume that if no NPDES permit is required

that the prerequisite is met? Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

If no NPDES permit required, this prerequisite is met.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#1With no reference guide available, the requirements for this credit are unclear. The

requirements refer to “in-building generated discharges.” Is this the sanitary sewer? If so, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories sanitary sewer is connected to the sewer system controlled by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). We propose submitting a letter stating the MRWPCA controls the sanitary waste and operates the regional wastewater treatment plant. Please confirm that we are interpreting this prerequisite correctly and that our proposed method of compliance is acceptable. Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

EPA NPDES Clean Water Requirements apply to several types of establishments and the specific applicability and requirements of this EPA program can be obtained from the NPDES web site (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=0). Look at the “Who Are You” link to determine if the NPDES program applies to your facility.

This prerequisite requires that one of two statements be provided:(1) A statement that the building is not subject to EPA NPDES Clean Water Requirements. In this

case no additional information on this topic needs to be filed.(2) A statement that the building is subject to EPA NPDES Clean Water Requirements.

In this case provide documentation that:(a) The NPDES permit has been obtained and that compliance has been maintained, AND(b) Proper use has been made of oil/water separators, grease interceptors, and other filtration

of in-building generated discharges. Provide documentation that wastes collected through these measures have been properly disposed of.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1Requirement states: "If regulated by the EPA NPDES Clean Water Act requirements, demonstrate NPDES permit compliance (if applicable)." What is the EPA NPDES Clean Water Act? Where can a copy of this Act be obtained? What code, agency, regulation, etc., requires compliance with this Act? If facility is not required to comply, is credit automatically accepted for this prerequisite?Source of Question: Ada County, ID – LEED EB Pilot Participant

52

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=0)


Response: The EPA NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Clean Water Act

applies to Point Sources, discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Go to the following web site and consult the “Who are you?” link for more information on NPDES applicability to your project (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=0). The EPA NPDES Clean Water Act is enforced by the USEPA as well as authorized states. If the EPA NPDES Clean Water Act does not apply to a facility, a statement that it does not apply to the facility is all that is required for this prerequisite.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1Requirement: "If regulated by the EPA NPDES Clean Water Act requirements,

demonstrate NPDES permit compliance (if applicable), AND use oil separators, grease interceptors and other filtration for in-building generated discharges and dispose of properly (details will be available in the LEED EB Reference Guide.) In the Documentation Requirements section it only requires documentation demonstrating ongoing NPDES permit compliance. Question: The way the Requirement is worded, it indicates that all facilities regardless of usage would require oil separators and grease interceptors. Generally these devices are installed to address specific applications like kitchens, restaurants and maintenance facilities and are not required on the standard office building. Please clarify when oil separators and grease separators are required. If a building meets the EPA NPDES requirements does it qualify for this prerequisite? If the building is not governed by EPA NPDES, does the building qualify for this prerequisite by default?Source of Question: Fort Lewis Public Works – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

See responses to questions LEED EB-Pilot: WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1 (Check number of Q being referenced) and LEED EB-Pilot: WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2 (Check number of Q being referenced). In the response to question LEED EB-Pilot: WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2 (Check number of Q being referenced), the paragraph

“Proper use has been made of oil/water separators, grease interceptors, and other filtration of in-building generated discharges. Provide documentation that wastes collected through these measures have been properly disposed of.” This should have been labeled subsection 2(b) that only applies in the circumstance where subject to EPA NPDES Clean Water Requirements. This correction will be made in the answer to this question in the response to question LEED EB-Pilot: WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2(Check number of Q being referenced) .

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-P2 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1For WE, Prerequisite 2, Discharge Water Compliance, we understand from reading this prerequisite that if regulated under NPDES, that we would need provide our compliance documentation, DMR's etc. I see no distinction in regard to which permit type? We have all of the required compliance documentation but it is as a result of our industrial permit. Our Phase II permit is just beginning and of course DMR's are not required at this time. Will this documentation suffice? Source of Question: Fort Lewis – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

53

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=0)


Provide an explanation of how your facilities fall under NPDES regulations and document the stage and status of your facilities progress through the process.

Water Use and Water Efficiency, Credit 1: Water Efficient Landscaping

Water Use and Water Efficiency, Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce Potable Water Consumption 50%

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C1.1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Employees and volunteers of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories have slowly replaced the

non-native vegetation with native vegetation. A majority of the native vegetation requires no watering. We propose to use the LEED calculator to determine the irrigation water reduction. Our design case would incorporate the planted “Xeriscape” as well as the mixed vegetation areas that still require watering. The baseline would consist of mixed vegetation covering the entire site which requires watering. The calculated areas off both cases will be equal. Comparing the two cases would result in water savings greater then 50%. Can the USGBC review our proposal and verify if we are on the right track. Would this proposed method be appropriate for a site containing approximately 12 acres of vegetation? Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Provide documentation of:(1) A calculated baseline of what the water usage for irrigation would be using a conventional

approach to irrigation, AND(2) The current water usage for irrigation. To earn the credit the current water usage for irrigation

needs to be less than 50% of the calculated baseline water usage for irrigation.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C1.1 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1While the verbiage of this credit is consistent with LEED 2.0/2.1 the steering committee, in

our opinion, should reconsider revising the requirements. Drip irrigation, micro misters, and intelligent control systems are more efficient than traditional irrigation systems but a more efficient irrigation system only partially meets the intent of this credit. The landscape palate controls the volume of water needed. Application of Xeriscaping principles must also be applied in combination with high efficient irrigation systems to obtain this credit. The credit language contained in LEED 2.0/2.1 works for new construction but cannot be applied to LEED-EB in the same way because an existing facility may already be water efficient and requiring additional reductions on an already efficient system may not be possible.

The 2nd point of this credit is clear and is easily enforceable for both new and existing.Recommend: Rewording of the credit to include other water efficient principles including

use of low water consuming plants included in xeriscaping principles. Establish a benchmark based on typical landscape design that is not based on xeriscaping principles or sq. ft. allowance for irrigation water consumption. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse: On the issue of the baseline for water usage for irrigation:

54


The irrigation water use reductions in LEED EB Credit WE 1.1 are meant to be relative to conventional irrigation systems typically used in the area where the building is located.

On the issue of changing landscape plantings to reduce irrigation water usage:Using water efficient, native, adapted, climate tolerant plantings, and xeriscaping are appropriate options for achieving the irrigation water reductions required to earn this credit. In the initial ballot draft of LEED EB, using water efficient, native, adapted, climate tolerant plantings, and xeriscaping will be specifically identified as one of the ways to achieve the irrigation water reductions required to earn this credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C1.1 & 1.2 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#1The CCI Center uses low-tech rainwater harvesting for 100% of irrigation needs and has

no permanent irrigation system installed. Both WE Credit1.1 and 1.2 request quarterly and annual water meter data for irrigation. The intent of Credit 1 is to limit or eliminate the use of potable water for landscape irrigation. We have eliminated this need by using rainwater, therefore meter reading for irrigation needs isimpossible. We have only one water meter and can verify that there is no increase of water usage in the summer time, indicating that there is no potable water use for irrigation which would occur in that season. Source of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Documenting how this irrigation system works and that there is no potable water usage for irrigation would earn both of these credits.

Water Use and Water Efficiency, Credit 1.2: Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce Potable Water Consumption an Additional 50% (100% total reduction)

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C1.2 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1:Recommend: Rewording of the credit to include other water efficient principles including

use of low water consuming plants included in xeriscaping principles. Establish a benchmark based on typical landscape design that is not based on xeriscaping principles or sq. ft. allowance for irrigation water consumption. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

On the issue of the baseline for water usage for irrigation:The irrigation water use reductions in LEED EB Credit WE 1.2 are meant to be relative to conventional irrigation systems, typically used in the area where the building is located.

On the issue of changing landscape plantings to reduce irrigation water usage:Using water efficient, native, adapted, climate tolerant plantings and xeriscaping are appropriate options for achieving the irrigation water reductions required to earn this credit. In the initial ballot draft of LEED EB, using water efficient, native, adapted, climate tolerant plantings, and xeriscaping will be specifically identified as one of the ways to achieve the irrigation water reductions required to earn this credit.

55


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C1.2 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#2:CIR for LEED EB WEc1.2 In support of WE credit 1.2 we are presenting the following

LEED 2.0 CIR from the USGBC website:1/3/2002 - Credit Interpretation RequestWe are taping a stormwater culvert near our site and treating the water for use as non-

potable irrigation water. We are providing water to 51,330 s.f. of landscaped area and have a planter designed for a 6th floor balcony/plaza area which is 123 s.f. Our question is this, In your Design Approach section you use the term "site landscape" can we assume that our planter is not site landscape and use potable water for this area only?

1/3/2002 - RulingYes, you can exclude the planter area from the site landscape, as it represents only 0.25%

of the total irrigated area. The water use for the planter should be included in the calculations for Water Use Credit 3.1 and 3.2 that apply to water use within buildings.

We would like to apply this ruling to the MLML submission. The MLML facility provides irrigation to 1,000 sq. ft. of planter / landscape area around the building and has developed the remaining 803,000-sqft of site into a thriving xeriscape.

The percent of irrigated landscape for the MLML site is:(1,000/(803,000+1,000))*100 = 0.12%

The total irrigated area of 0.12 % is less than the 0.25% presented in the 1/3/2002 Ruling. We feel this qualifies for WEc1.2.

To be consistent with the 1/3/2002 Ruling we have included the water use for the planter / landscape area in the calculations for WEc3.1, 3.2 and Innovation credit 1.5 (exemplary performance).

If this CIR is acceptable for LEED EB following two questions:1) If this path is acceptable, there should be a maximum limit set as precedent for others to

follow. This maximum limit will allow future projects to submit without going through the CIR process. The 1/3/2002 Ruling did not clearly set the maximum limit. It only states that 0.25% is acceptable. We propose that there be a definition on what the maximum limit shall be: 0.25%, 0.5%, 1.0% etc*

2) If this path is acceptable, there should be a clarification on how to include the water use into WEc3.1 and 3.2. Will the benefit of high efficient irrigation systems be transferable? For example, the MLML facilities high efficiency landscape irrigation as per the LEED 2.0 calculator is 5,015 gallons per year. The baseline calculation for this system is 6,111 gallons per year. We propose that the 5,015 gallons be added to the WEc3 Design Case and the 6,111 gallons be added to the WEc3 Baseline Case.

If you require further discussion on this credit, please do not hesitate to contact me. Source of Question: Keen Engineering – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Based on the NC CIR and avoiding unnecessary absolutes, up to 1% of the typical irrigation that would be applied to the site can be used for planters, ornamental plantings or other irrigation applications that are acceptable within the definition of “no use of potable water for irrigation”.

Since the indoor water use is specifically tied to fixture water use and there are separate credits for irrigation water use reduction, the water use reduction for irrigation is not be transferable to indoor fixture water use reductions for WEc3.1 or WEc3.2.

56


Water Use and Water Efficiency, Credit 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1Reduce/maintain wastewater by 50% over ‘existing’ conditions. Should this read over

‘conventional’ conditions, so that EPACT 92 is the baseline, or is it really a relative baseline? What if the building was built with low-flow fixtures already; do they use EPACT 92 as baseline or do they have to install additional measures to achieve this credit? Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

The reduction in use of potable water should be calculated relative to the water use baseline calculated for the Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1 (Minimum Water Efficiency). This provides a fixed baseline and accommodates the full range of options for reducing the use of potable water for sewage conveyance.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 9 - Q#2This credit requires reduced use of municipally provided potable water for building sewage

conveyance by 50% or more over existing conditions, OR treat 100% of wastewater on-site to tertiary standards. This credit is written based on a per building basis.

How does this credit apply on a campus basis? For example if a University or a Military Base has it’s own wastewater treatment facility that serves only the campus, does this qualify as on-site wastewater treatment and thus qualify for this credit? In a campus setting, it does not make sense to install independent wastewater treatment systems in each building. This would be an enormous cost and maintenance burden and would not be cost effective. Can a campus based wastewater treatment system qualify for this credit? Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

In a university campus, military base or similar campus situation the following standards apply:(a) Since such campuses may have their own potable water supply systems “municipal potable

water” includes potable water from a campus water system whether or not that potable water originally comes from a municipality, another outside source or an on campus source.

For campuses, if there is a campus wastewater treatment system on the campus site that treats 100% of the waste water from the campus to tertiary standards, each of the buildings on the campus would qualify for this credit.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - WE-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1):WE 2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies -Does an on site septic system count as a way to "reduce the use of municipally provided potable water," since it means that no municipal water is necessary for building wastewater sewage conveyance?Source of Question: Vineyard 29 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse – (LEED-EB PILOT - WE-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1):No, on site septic systems do not qualify for WE Credit 2. A treatment system that treats the sewage to tertiary standards would qualify for WE Credit 2.

57


Water Use and Water Efficiency, Credit 3: Water Use Reduction

Water Use and Water Efficiency, Credit 3.1: Water Use Reduction, 10% Reduction

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C3.1 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#1By completing the LEED 2.0 calculation for Water Use Reduction, the Moss Landing

Marine Laboratories building meets the water use reduction criteria stated in Credit 3.1. Due to the use of one water meter for both domestic and process loads, we would not be able to verify that the annual water use is reduced. We propose to submit product cut sheets and the appropriate specification section from the buildings construction to verify the buildings plumbing fixtures. We could also submit a letter from the Building Services Engineer / Facilities Supervisor stating that no fixtures have been replaced or modified since installation. Please comment on our proposed approach to these credits.

Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The Water Efficiency Credit 3.1 requires water use reduction of 10% below the calculated water usage baseline calculated for Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1. This is calculated on the basis of what the water usage would be if 90% of the plumbing fixtures were compliant with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture requirements. For this reason, Water Efficiency Credit 3.1 can be earned either of two ways:(1) By providing documentation that 100% of each type of affected plumbing fixtures meet the

Energy Policy Act of 1992 fixture requirements, OR(2) By providing metered water usage data that shows that the water usage is 10 % less than the

calculated water usage baseline prepared for Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1.

Water Use and Water Efficiency, Credit 3.2: Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – WE-C3.2 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#1By completing the LEED 2.0 calculation for Water Use Reduction, the Moss Landing

Marine Laboratories building meets the water use reduction criteria stated in credit 3.2. Due to the use of one water meter for both domestic and process loads, we would not be able to verify that the annual water use is reduced. We propose to submit product cut sheets and the appropriate specification section from the buildings construction to verify the buildings plumbing fixtures. We could also submit a letter from the Building Services Engineer / Facilities Supervisor stating that no fixtures have been replaced or modified since installation. Please comment on our proposed approach to these credits. Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Since the Water Efficiency Credit 3.2 requires water use reduction of 20% below the calculated water usage baseline, calculated for the Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1, this credit needs to be earned by: providing metered water usage data that shows that the water usage is 20 % less than the calculated water usage baseline prepared for Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1.

58


Section 3: Energy and Atmosphere

Energy and Atmosphere, Prerequisite 1: Comprehensive Building Commissioning/Retro Commissioning

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Request for additional details on how to meet this requirement. Source of Question: Several verbal requests for more information.Response:

See revised version of this prerequisite and reference materials in the draft LEED EB Reference Guide section for this prerequisite (to be posted soon, but already distributed to LEED EB Pilots).

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1The project does not quite fit the current LEED mold of build systems, commission

systems, turn over systems to be operated by owner. The project has had ongoing facilities operation and maintenance outsourced to a facilities maintenance company. The FM monitors the system, performs routine maintenance using input from the monitoring system & a preventative maintenance schedule. The chiller system is monitored by a manufacturer approved contractor on a daily basis; they also perform maintenance and repairs. As M&V and testing and monitoring have been performed on an ongoing basis since the project was built, is there a need to re-commission the building systems? If so, what form must this re-commissioning take? The extent of 'testing' for existing chillers and other equipment required by the LEED EB prerequisite is unclear. The building has undergone occupancy and plug load variations throughout the life of the building, so it would be difficult to simply compare current performance to the original design information. Can the current performance, that has been maintained based on monitoring, trending and subsequent adjustments, qualify as a baseline system that has essentially been re-commissioned' throughout the building's life? Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

See revised version of this prerequisite and reference materials in the draft LEED EB Reference Guide section for this prerequisite and, in particular, the last paragraph of Section 7: Strategies and Technologies.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#2If the building has been using an on-going preventative maintenance and repair program,

do they have to have a specific re-commissioning or is stating that systems have been maintained in working order sufficient (in conjunction with O&M plan and other documentation required by this prereq.)? Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

See revised version of this prerequisite and reference materials in the draft LEED EB Reference Guide section for this prerequisite and, in particular, the last paragraph of Section 7: Strategies and Technologies.

59


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1Please clarify the last bullet under the requirements

Each time the occupancy of the building changes and each time the building is modified, repeat steps 1 – 5 for the areas of the building affected by the modifications. If change in occupancy leads to significant changes to the interior/exterior surfaces of the building, LEED 2.0 for New Construction and Major Renovations or LEED for Commercial Interiors will be used. If change in occupants does not lead to significant changes to interior/exterior surfaces, LEED EB will be used.It seems that this is more appropriate under Credit 3.1 -Continuous Cx. Is it the intent of this prerequisite to tune up the building? And steps 1- 5 are the prerequisite requirements. Step 6 should be incorporated into a Cts Cx program.

Source of question: Pentagon Renovation, Wedge 2 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

This statement means that when a building’s usage is modified by reconfiguration of the rooms in the building that could affect the way that systems operate, that the appropriate re-commissioning needs to be carried out to ensure that the systems operate appropriately for the building’s new pattern of usage. A good example of why this is important is the fact that when the interiors of buildings are remodeled and rooms are rearranged, the HVAC systems are frequently not modified appropriately to address the changes in usage. This statement is designed to require that where such changes in building use are made, that the building systems be appropriately modified to address these changes and then re-commissioned to ensure they are operating as intended.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#2Measurement and Verification, and Commissioning hold the highest potential for reducing

this countries dependency on foreign oil and the depletion of fossil fuels, in addition to making significant reductions in green house gas emissions within the existing building stock. I strongly oppose allowing 5 years to bring a building into compliance allowing certification of poor performing buildings. This is contrary to purpose of LEED and significantly waters down purpose of the credit.

7.1.2 Space Environmental Conditions - Space Pressurization: Suggest being more specific in option B. Trending must include comparisons between interior and exterior pressures to have any value. Building Envelop: Air infiltration is important but 80% of the buildings with poor indoor air quality are the result of moisture intrusion which leads to mold and mildew, sick building syndrome, etc. The operational plan must also address moisture intrusion.

7.2.1.2 Air Handling Units: Air distribution systems (ductwork, diffusers, terminal boxes, controls, etc) are not addressed. The air distribution system plays an important part of occupant comfort, and effects energy consumption. Owners should be aware of duct transitions especially at the air handling unit that may be artificially increasing system static pressure and the operational cost associated with increased fan energy needed resulting form increased static pressure. Control of air is also very important to energy consumption and occupant comfort must be part of the performance requirements. Source of Question: Jay Enck – LEED EB ConsultantResponse:

60


Part 1: 5 Year Phase-in Option for Commissioning Existing Buildings. See the building commissioning section of the Draft LEED EB Reference Guide for the current standard for this prerequisite. The LEED EB Committee has voted in support of the option on having a 5 year phase-in option for commissioning existing buildings. Time and application of this standard will provide information on how frequently this option is used, why, and the achievements over the phase in period.

Part 2: Space Pressurization: Inclusion of comparisons between interior and exterior pressures will be added.

Part 3: Building Envelop: Avoiding moisture intrusion will be added as something the operational plans need to address.

Part 4: Air distribution system: A discussion of the important role the air distribution system (ductwork, diffusers, terminal boxes, controls, etc) plays in occupant comfort and energy consumption will be included. This discussion will include the potential impact of duct transitions, especially at the air handling unit. Duct transitions may be artificially increasing system static pressure and the operational cost associated with the increased fan energy needed resulting from increased static pressure.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Can a service provider involved in upgrading a facility for a building owner also function

as the commissioning authority for the facility upgrade, if the as stated in LEED 2.0, the person that will provide the commission activity will not be involved in any design, construction management, or supervision of the project? Source of Question: Richard WardResponse:

Based on the credit interpretations on this issue for LEED NC, as long as the individual(s) that are used to provide the commissioning activity are not involved in any design, construction management, or supervision of the project, they can provide commissioning services under LEED. This is consistent with the LEED NC 10/26/01 CIR for this prerequisite.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#11.a: Consistency in LEED-EB projects - Without clarifications of the requirements of the building operating plan, the requirements for implementation of findings, and the scope of retrocommissioning for buildings that are a part of a campus, we believe there will be unnecessary inconsistency in the way retrocommissioning is implemented in LEED-EB projects, as well as inconsistency in the cost to implement this process. This will make it difficult to plan and budget for this aspect of the LEED-EB certification system and may lead to USGBC membership discontent with this new rating system. By creating clearer guidelines on the retrocommissioning requirements, LEED-EB will avoid the range of commissioning costs seen in LEED-NC. The specific topics to be clarified are discussed in b) through d) below.

1.b: The Building Operating Plan - Overall, we feel that the Building Operating Plan requirements are reasonable, but the Reference Guide (May 15, 2003) leaves us unsure that we

61


have correctly interpreted the requirements. Clarification of the issues discussed below will improve the commissioning provider’s ability to scope a LEED-EB project.

In Section 7: Strategies and Technologies, the Building Operating Plan is further defined in sections, 7.1 Building-Level Performance and 7.2 Primary HVAC Systems. Are these procedures intended to be the only requirements for the RCx Prerequisite Building Operating Plan submittal? If so, we suggest that the Prerequisite Requirement section reference Section 7.1 and 7.2 for the detailed requirements.

If the requirements listed in Sections 7.1 and 7.2 are only an example of what could be included in a submittal (for a large building, for instance), then this flexibility should be stated. We have also noticed that the requirements 7.1 and 7.2 are more applicable to larger buildings with central plant mechanical systems. Smaller less complex facilities without central plant systems (simple packaged HVAC systems) may need different Building Operating Plan requirements that are not addressed in the current requirements.

1.c: Implementation Requirements for Retrocommissioning Findings - We request that the requirements for implementation of retrocommissioning findings be further clarified in the LEED-EB reference manual. At the end of the investigation phase of the retrocommissioning process, a list of findings is presented to the owner. It is clear that not all of these findings must be implemented to achieve LEED certification, since some findings are opportunities to further improve operations, rather than instances where operation has deviated from the building operations plan. We consider this the difference between a “problem” and an “opportunity”. In our LEED-EB pilot, we presented the owner with our interpretation of which findings were necessary to implement within the next 5 years to achieve LEED certification. We grouped our findings into three categories (see below).

Case 1: Operation clearly does not follow intended control. These problems must be fixed for LEED certification.

Case 2: Operation follows intended control, but leads to significant unintended problems. These problems must be fixed for LEED certification. In some cases, we found the need to update the sequences to significantly improve control. For example, the original building warm-up control did not prevent warm-up mode from occurring during occupied hours and allowed simultaneous heating and cooling to routinely occur, which is both a significant indoor air quality concern and an energy waste. Since the warm-up sequence will be changed in the updated building operation plan, then the new sequence will be required to implement.

Case 3: Operation follows intended control, but optimization is proposed. These optimization strategies are not required to be implemented for LEED-EB certification. This case is differentiated from case 2 because here, the system can operate as originally designed without adverse impact. However, these recommendations could improve the energy efficiency or control of the systems. For example, a capital improvement to add VFDs to the cooling tower fans could eliminate fan cycling, increase motor life, and improve condenser water temperature control. However it should not be a

62


required by LEED-EB since the original intended design did not require this, and the system can operate sufficiently without VFDs.

We propose that that the LEED-EB committee further clarifies the implementation criteria for retrocommissioning findings in LEED-EB Retrocommissioning reference guide.

1.d: Scope of retrocommissioning for a facility within a campus - With a considerable number of buildings that are a part of campuses that may be applying for LEED certification, we suggest that the committee consider creating guidelines for the retrocommissioning scope for these types of facilities. With central plants typically remote from the building site, it is unclear whether some level of retrocommissioning of the supporting chilled water and hot water/steam utilities is necessary for the LEED-EB prerequisite. Since retrocommissioning takes a systems approach, we suggest that the central plant operation be considered integral to the systems at the facility trying to achieve LEED-EB status. Not investigating potentially substantial inefficiencies in the central plant operation overlooks an important area for efficiency improvements. Creating a policy for these facilities will help LEED retrocommissioning providers better scope their services.Source of Questions: Hatfield Federal Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: 1.b: The Building Operating Plan: The items listed in reference guide 7.1 & 7.2 are examples and the specific building operating plan should reflect the characteristics of the buildings.

1.c: Implementation Requirements for Retrocommissioning Findings – The required actions in response to commissioning findings are as follows:

Case 1: Operation clearly does not follow intended control. These problems must be fixed for LEED certification.

Case 2: Operation follows intended control, but leads to significant unintended problems. These problems must be fixed for LEED certification. In some cases, we found the need to update the sequences to significantly improve control. For example, the original building warm-up control did not prevent warm-up mode from occurring during occupied hours and allowed simultaneous heating and cooling to routinely occur, which is both a significant indoor air quality concern and an energy waste. Since the warm-up sequence will be changed in the updated building operation plan, then the new sequence will be required to implement.

Case 3: Operation follows intended control, but optimization is proposed. These optimization strategies are not required to be implemented for LEED-EB certification. This case is differentiated from case 2 because here, the system can operate as originally designed without adverse impact. However, these recommendations could improve the energy efficiency or control of the systems. For example, a capital improvement to add VFDs to the cooling tower fans could eliminate fan cycling, increase motor life, and improve condenser water temperature control. However it should not be a required by LEED-EB since the original intended design did not require this, and the system can operate sufficiently without VFDs.

1.d: Scope of existing building commissioning for a facility within a campus –

63


Central plant operation should be included in the existing commissioning of the building even if located remotely from the building site, Such systems are considered integral to the systems at the facility trying to achieve LEED-EB status.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#8As an addition to the LEED retrocommissioning prerequisite, we recommend that

commissioning providers examine building service contracts and provide feedback to owners on how to improve the contracts. This feedback is critical if ongoing monitoring is to happen and persistence will be achieved over time. Most service contracts do not contain incentives for the service providers to meet efficiency goals, but are based almost solely on reducing comfort complaints and performing routine maintenance activities. Additionally, upon LEED certification, there are numerous other responsibilities that may need to be written into the contracts. The commissioning provider is in a good position to help evaluate those needs. Source of Question: Hatfield Federal Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

These are services that can be provided by the commissioning provider, but they can also be provided by others. LEED-EB already has many incentives for improved building performance so this will not be added as a requirement.

Energy and Atmosphere, Prerequisite 2: Minimum Energy Performance

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1The guideline states the requirement to meet ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 on page 19 of

the LEED for Existing Buildings Reference Guide. However, there are two efficiency levels, one before 10/29/01 and one after. The question is, can the equipment meet the efficiency levels before 10/29/01 and satisfy the LEED Requirement? Source of Question: Foreman Architects - LEED EB Pilot Project Response:

The primary standard for the minimum energy performance prerequisite is that the energy use of the building needs to earn the building an Energy Star Building Benchmarking Tool score of 60 or greater. The alternative standard is to compare the actual energy use of the building to the energy use calculated using ASHRAE 90.1 1999 or the local building code, which ever is more stringent. Since the post-10/29/01 ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 efficiency levels were in effect when the Pilot Draft of LEED EB was released in January 2002, these post 10/29/01 efficiency levels are the ones to use for in the LEED EB pilot.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#2Could allowances be made for satisfying this pre-requisite by demonstrating that a

sufficient amount of energy conservation strategies are being employed? Energy consumption is dependent on many factors, one being building design and construction. Our building was designed to be a national / world wide corporate office building. The first issue is that floor plan contains seven atriums, which extend from the ground floor to the roof. This architectural detail

64


accounts for approximately 15% of the building square footage. Secondly, the floor area consists almost exclusively of individual office spaces, and thirdly this facility is a world wide corporate headquarters building resulting in a higher than average usage profile. These three factors are not accounted for in the Energy Star Green Building rating system and subsequently score this facility low.Source of Question: Johnson & Johnson Headquarters - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The LEED EB Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 - Minimum Energy Performance requires that the building score 60 or better under the Energy Star Building Label Benchmarking Tool. For buildings that were not designed with energy efficiency as a high priority, meeting this prerequisite can present challenges. However there are many efficiency options that can help meet these challenges. It is unlikely this requirement will change since we expect that it will be met by most of the LEED EB Pilot Participants.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P2 - QUESTION GROUP 6 - Q#1Is it acceptable to utilize the Comcheck system as required by the State of Idaho to comply

with the State energy code for interior lighting? Requirement states: "Demonstrate building efficiency and performance as required by the EPA ENERGY STAR label benchmarking tool score of 60 for buildings." Where can I obtain a copy of the EPA Energy Star benchmarking tool? (I could not locate under the USGBC web site under the resources section.) Source of Question: Ada County, ID – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Providing ComCheck results would not be sufficient to meet this prerequisite. The Energy Star Benchmarking Tool is available for use on the US EPA web site at: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=eligibility.bus_portfoliomanager_eligibility.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P2, C1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Title 24, California Energy Code is considered a more stringent local code when compared

with ASHRAE 90.1-1999 and would therefore be used to construct the energy cost budget building for LEED for Existing Buildings, Energy and Atmosphere-Credit 1. To help improve the accuracy and to expedite the simulation process for the Moss Landing pilot project, we are proposing to use EnergyPro for the building simulations. This software is approved for use by the State of California to demonstrate compliance with Title 24, California Energy Code. By using this software, both the proposed design building and the cost budget building can be constructed for simulation using only one set of data inputs. The chance for error and the time taken to pursue this path will both be reduced as the cost budget building is generated automatically using approved software. Accordingly, LEED amendment, LEED 2.0-EAc1-133, Table 8d, shows a different point credit table for use with Title 24 buildings. Using this table and EnergyPro would allow for representative point credits with less effort and with more accuracy. We request your approval and comments on this process for use with LEED for Existing Buildings with the intent to apply it on the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories project. Source of Question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

65

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=eligibility.bus_portfoliomanager_eligibility


LEED EB requirements for Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 2 & Credit 1 are about the actual metered energy use of the building relative to a benchmark. Two options for making this comparison of actual metered energy use with an energy use benchmark are included in the LEED EB. First, the actual energy use of the building can be can be compared to the energy use of other buildings by using Energy Star Building Benchmarking Tool and secondly, the actual energy use of the building can be can be compared to the target energy use calculated using ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 (system / component method for the prerequisite and the whole building budget cost method for Credit 1), or the local energy code (whichever is more stringent).

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P2, C1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1Our project site is a mixed-use facility – approximately 1/3 R&D lab space and 2/3 office

space. The EPA’s Energy Star tool has no category for R&D labs, so we find that to be inadequate for benchmarking the performance of our building. What is the appropriate benchmarking tool or approach for mixed-use facilities? Situation Details:

Our LEED-EB pilot project building, while energy-efficient in many ways, cannot presently qualify for the LEED EA Energy Performance credits (EA 1.1-1.2) because of a lack of adequate benchmarking and modeling tools. As specified in the LEED EB credits, we are to benchmark against ASHRAE or EPA Energy Star. The basic problem is that while ASHRAE and EPA Energy Star have office building benchmarks, neither can accommodate the mixed-use facility that our project represents:

3-story global headquarters and innovation center situated on 45 acres of sensitively developed land

189,000 SF office and common areas61,000 SF R&D labs

The central heating and chilling plant is common to the whole facility, but the fan systems are unique to each of the areas, office area and research & development area. The facility meets all applicable codes, as well as high efficiency ratings on the lighting and building envelope systems. Beyond code compliance, JohnsonDiversey has taken great strides to enhance the energy efficiency of the lab area mechanical systems in question. Energy conservation measures that are in place include a heat wheel with latent and sensible energy recovery, VAV (Variable Air Volume) control for the supply fans and labs, and a common ducted exhaust system that stages and modulates six exhaust fans as required by the lab activities. It is believed that the efforts taken to improve the energy efficiency of the building lab zone warrant EA Performance credits.Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:1. Treat the building as two separate facilities for setting the building performance standard:

(a) office and (b) research & development labs.2. Use EPA Energy Star Building Benchmarking tool for offices to determine energy use for

the office portion of the building for each energy savings level noted in LEED for earning points in LEED EB.

3. Use EPA Energy Star Building Benchmarking tool for offices to determine percentage energy savings relative to average performance for each energy savings level noted in LEED for earning points in LEED EB.

66


4. Model the energy performance of the laboratory portion of the building as if average efficiency equipment, control strategies and design had been used.

5. For the laboratory portion of the building, use the percentage energy savings relative to average performance, developed for each energy saving level in Step 3 above, to calculate the target energy use. Evaluate target/actual energy use/performance, for each energy savings level, relative to the average modeled performance developed in Step 4.

6. Combine the target energy use for the office portion of the building, for each energy savings level developed in Step 2, with the target energy use for the laboratory portion of the building, for each level, developed in Step 5.

7. Weather normalize the actual building energy use and then compare it to the target energy use levels, calculated in Step 6, to determine if the prerequisite is met and what points are earned by the building’s actual energy performance data.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P2, C1 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1:We would like to know how we can register a building that is currently not monitored for

energy usage. The building is charged a flat fee per month based on a KWH rating of 85,119. Source of Question: Gina Cooper – LEED Accredited ProfessionalResponse:

The building can be registered but in order to become certified the building must have whole building energy use metering in place. This metering can determine whether the building meets the minimum energy performance requirements and how many energy efficiency points it qualifies for.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P2, C1 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1:For the following questions, please consider that the building Owner in question obtained

an older structure in SF, renovated and restored the building, and began to lease up in the past 8 months. There are a handful of tenants that stayed in the building during this transition and maintained continuous, uninterrupted occupancy.

1) Energy & Atmosphere: Pre-requisite 2This pre-req requires an Energy Star benchmarking tool score. In order to generate an official score and comply with Energy Star's requirements, the building can not have an average vacancy greater than 20%. The building in question had an average vacancy greater than 20% during 2003. With recent lease activity this team will meet the requirement in 2004. For the initial certification of this project, can the 20% limit be waived? OR, as a fall back, can they use a reduced building area in the benchmarking tool to mimic 80% occupancy? Source of Question: The Pankow Companies - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: (1) Option 1: Accumulate at least 4 months of utility bills with building occupancy of at least 80%

and then scale this data to represent a year. (2) Option 2: : Accumulate 12 months of utility bills with building occupancy of at least 80%.

Energy and Atmosphere, Prerequisite 3: Ozone Protection

67


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#1In order to document that HVAC&R base building systems do not use CFCs, a “No CFC

Certification Letter” is to be provided. From whom must this certification letter be obtained? Source of Question: Johnson Diversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

A letter from someone knowledgeable about the HVAC&R base building systems who knows what refrigerants are used in theses systems. This could be a building engineer or a service provider that maintains this equipment.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1In order to document that HVAC&R base building systems do not use CFCs, a “No CFC Certification Letter” is to be provided. From whom must this certification letter be obtained? Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

A written statement from the facility manager of the building is adequate for this purpose.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#2Our building has recently been expanded to double its size. The addition was designed to

minimize heating and cooing loads. In the course of the expansion it was discovered that the existing chiller (in place prior to the expansion) in our building was large enough to meet the cooling needs of both the original part of our building and the expansion. Given that our building has recently expanded and that the existing chiller uses CFCs, would our building be eligible for certification under LEED EB? Source of Question: Johanna Sands, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca PartnershipResponse:

There are two issues here: Application of LEED EB to recently expanded buildings and continued use of an existing CFC chiller to meet the cooling needs of the original building and the addition.

First Issue: The LEED EB Pilot is allowing a wide range of buildings including those with additions to participate in the LEED EB Pilot. This will allow the LEED EB pilot to provide clarification of where the appropriate boundary is between LEED EB and LEED NC. Your building can apply for certification under LEED EB.

Second Issue: LEED EB allows continued use of existing chillers that use CFC if a third party economic analysis is provided that shows that it would not be cost effective to replace the existing CFC chiller with a non CFC chiller at this time. Based on these two points, your building would be eligible for certification under LEED EB if a third party economic analysis is provided that shows that it would not be cost effective to replace the existing CFC chiller with a non CFC chiller at this time.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#4For the following questions, please consider that the building Owner in question obtained

an older structure in SF, renovated and restored the building, and began to lease up in the past 8 months. There are a handful of tenants that stayed in the building during this transition and maintained continuous, uninterrupted occupancy.

68


2) Energy & Atmosphere: Pre-requisite 3 This pre-req requires use of non-CFC based refrigerants in base building HVAC systems. As I mentioned above, the building in question has a handful of tenants that have been in the building prior to my Ownership group buying the property. These tenants are still operating heat pumps using R-11 which is CFC based. But these are not "base building" systems. The Ownership is prepared to phase out these heat pumps once the tenants lease ends and they vacate the space. In the interim the building Owner has approached the tenant in an attempt to encourage them to voluntarily phase out the use of CFC based cooling. Do you concur that they meet the spirit and intent of the Pre-requisite? Source of Question: The Pankow Companies - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

With the LEED-EB Certification Application provide a letter: (1) Stating that it is not feasible to replace these units at this time because they are under the control of the tenants rather than the building owner, (2) Describing how you have encouraged the tenants to replace the R-11 heat pumps, and (3) stating that these units will be replaced by the owner with non-CFC units when there is a tenant change over.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-P3, - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#5Steelcase's Wood Furniture Plant is a LEED certified building that was certified under the

original LEED 1.0 program. The certification was received in October 2001. We have been following the LEED EB program with the hopes of applying for certification in 2006 when our current certification expires.

The building is predominately a wood furniture manufacturing plant. As part of improving our production quality, we would like to move an existing process from one of our nearby plants to the Wood Plant. This process is called a Coordinate Measurement Machine or CMM. The CMM is part of a controlled room that utilizes a HVAC system for temperature and humidity control. The HVAC unit uses R22 as a refrigerant. This process will be a valuable tool in improving quality and consistency of our products.

According to our local HVAC contractor, it is not possible to retrofit the current unit. They further indicated that, given the size (75,900 BTU/hr), it is not technically feasible to replace the HVAC unit with one that uses alternative material.

We are concerned about EA Prerequisite 3 - CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment. Will the installation of this CMM process jeopardize the possibility of applying for LEED EB?

Also, do we need to look back 1 year or 5 years when applying for LEED EB? Thanks for your help in this matter. Source of Question: Steelcase, Inc.Response:

R22 is an HCFC refrigerant rather than a CFC refrigerant so it is not covered by the EA-P3. The first re-certification under LEED-EB must include a year of performance data. Subsequent recertifications must include performance data for the full period since the previous certification. It is recommended that, as soon as possible, you put in place all the policies and tracking required

69


for LEED-EB prerequisites and the desired credits, and begin tracking and maintaining building performance.

Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 1: Optimize Energy Performance

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 2- Q#1Need interpolation table for Energy Star scores, similar to v 2.1.

Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

The following interpolations can be used for LEED EB EA Credit 1:

EPA Building Rating Points Energy SavingsTOOL Score Based on ASHRAE

90.1-199970 2 10 %72.5 3 15 %75 4 20 %77.5 5 25 %80 6 30 %82.5 7 35 %85 8 40 %87.5 9 45 %90 10 50 %

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 9 - Q#1There is a requirement to provide copies of the energy bills. Since actual bills for Wedge 2 do not exist we would like to submit metered energy data from the M & V activities instead. Is this acceptable? (Group 9)Source of question: Pentagon Renovation, Wedge 2 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Supplying the energy use data from sub-metering that includes all the energy use in Wedge 2 would be an appropriate response to this requirement.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Currently, two LEED points are earned per 10% of energy performance above

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. If our building has an energy performance of 35%, can we earn 7 LEED points? Recommendation: 1 LEED point can be earned for every 5% of energy performance above ASHRA/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, with a 10% minimum. Source of Question: Karges-Faulconbridge BuildingResponse:

70


The revised point scale for energy use reduction approved by the LEED EB Committee is: 1 point is earned at 65 on the Energy Star Building Rating Scale and each additional 3 points on the Energy Star Scale earns another LEED EB point. This goes up to 92 on the Energy Star Scale where 10 points are earned. If possible, use the Energy Star rating tool to calculate the Energy Star Rating for the building and then use the Energy Star Rating to determine the number of points that will be earned in LEED EB EA Credit 1.For building types that are not currently covered by the Energy Star Building Benchmarking tool, the LEED EB Committee is developing an alternative energy performance evaluation path. The best formulation of this alternative path today is described in response to a question on this credit for the JohnsonDiversey headquarters building which is a combination of office space and laboratory space. A generic description and guide to using this an alternative energy performance evaluation path is being prepared and will be included in the LEED EB Reference guide.

Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 2: Renewable Energy

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1This credit awards 1-3 points for generating 5-15% of the building’s total energy usage

through the use of on-site renewable energy systems. How does this credit apply on a campus basis? For example if a University of a Military Base has a renewable energy source on-campus, does this qualify for these credits? If this does qualify, would the have to document the total energy generated and document how the energy is disseminated to each facility to ensure that the energy is not double counted? Renewable energy technologies provided on a per building basis may not be practical or cost effective. Can a campus based renewable energy system with proper documentation qualify for this credit? Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

Yes, the 3 points under EA Credit 2 can be earned on a campus basis. There are two possible approaches: One approach would be for the there to be a renewable energy source on campus that is dedicated to service the building in the LEED EB Pilot. In this case the documentation would need to show: (1) that the energy from this renewable energy source is dedicated to this building, (2) the amount of energy produced and, (3) the fraction of the buildings load this represents. A second approach would be for the to be a renewable energy source on campus that serves all the campus buildings including the building in the LEED EB Pilot. In this case the documentation would need to show: (1) that the energy from this renewable energy source serves all campus buildings, (2) the amount of energy produced and, (3) the fraction of the campus load this represents. In this case the fraction of the campus load being served is also the fraction of the individual building’s load that is being served.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#1This credit requires providing for a portion of the building's energy through non-polluting

and renewable energy. Can a turbine used as a pressure reducing station in a steam system qualify as renewable energy? Or might this qualify for an innovation credit? See below:

We have several applications where we use a turbine to as a pressure reducing station in a steam system. The steam is sent through the turbine at a high pressure, the turbine reduces the

71


pressure while generating electricity. There are no emissions generated from the turbine. However, there is a small increase in fuel consumption and thus small increase in emissions due to providing steam at the higher pressure. See quick sample below:

A quick look at a steam table tells me that (using 32 deg F as a basis), a pound of steam at 10 psig has an enthalpy of 1,160 BTU/lbs, while a pound of steam at 300 psig has 1,203 BTU/lb - so it takes an extra 3.7% percent of fuel (with related emissions) to make the higher pressure. From that, you extract about 1/40 of a KW (85 BTU, or about 1/2 the difference between the sensible heat at 300 - sensible heat at 10). In a PRV, that excess energy radiates and convects away as heat off the PRV.

Conclusion: Emissions are increased a little. Efficiency is not all that different based on pressure. Is it more efficient to extract heat as work in turbine than waste it as heat - YES. Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

The described actions would not support earning the renewable energy credit. The described actions could be proposed as an innovation credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Regarding Energy and Atmosphere Credit 2.1: The intent is to encourage and recognize

increasing levels of self-supply through renewable technologies to reduce environmental impacts associated with fossil fuel energy use.

The requirements are to supply/maintain a net fraction of the building’s total energy use through the use of on-site renewable energy systems.

If we supply 5% - 15% of the building’s total energy use through the use of purchased renewable energy systems, does that meet the requirement? We can purchase 100% Colorado wind power, a renewable energy, through our current energy provider, Xcel Energy, at an increased cost and meet the intent of the credit. Would this get us the point? Source of Question: Amerimar Realty – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

The current EA Credit 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 points can only be earned with on site renewable energy. The current EA Credit 6 point can be earned with off site green power.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:EA 2: Renewable Energy -Our project has been designed to utilize underground caves for the wine barrel/storage areas. This provides a geothermal sink which enables the project to avoid refrigeration in these areas. Could this qualify as a renewable energy source for this credit? (or could it qualify for an Innovation credit?)Source of Question: Vineyard 29 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse – LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:The response to LEED-NC Credit Interpretation Requested dated 4/21/2003 (the response is dated 5/16/2003) states that energy needs to be generated (i.e. electricity) to earn the renewable energy points while design actions that use renewable energy resources to reduce building energy loads directly without the generation of electricity are recognized and rewarded as energy savings under EA credit 1.

72


Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 3: Continuous Commissioning and Maintenance

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Request for additional details on how to meet this requirement. Source of Question: Several verbal requests for more information.Response:

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 6 - Q#1Indicates that the requirements are to monitor indoor environmental parameters and lists

specifically; CO2, temperature and humidity. Are these items examples or absolute requirements for the credit, please clarify? Specifically, is CO2 monitoring an absolute requirement for this credit? Source of question: Pentagon Renovation, Wedge 2 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

To earn this credit all three of these environmental parameters must be monitored: CO2, temperature and humidity.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Regarding Energy and Atmosphere Credit 3.1: Denver Place does not have existing

humidification equipment except for a few computer rooms. We propose to monitor return air humidity on a few systems to document actual conditions for the continuous commissioning requirement. We do not propose adding any humidification equipment (which does not seem required by the credit, only monitoring) because humidification in the dry Denver climate would result in excessive energy consumption. This is a semi –arid climate. Use of humidification in Denver is extremely rare and not standard practice partly for this reason and partly because of the difficulty retaining the moisture in a building in this climate. Building occupants in Denver are accustomed to the dryer climate and the humidification might feel odd and uncomfortable. Is this approach acceptable? Source of Question: Amerimar Realty – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:See response LEED EB-Pilot: IEQ-C7.1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1 below (Check number of Q being referenced).

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1The credit requirements are to the monitor CO2, temperature, and humidity on a "daily"

basis. However, the submittals for this point require a plan to be developed that monitors these parameters on an "hourly" basis. If the intent of this requirement is to regularly document that appropriate indoor environmental requirements are being met, would developing a "daily" program where building staff sample selected courtrooms, offices and common spaces with handheld temperature and CO2 levels instruments, record this information into log book, and develop appropriate procedures to rectify problems when the parameters are not met, be sufficient to meet the credit requirements?

73


Source of Question: James Hatfield Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The credit requirement states that CO2, Temperature, and humidity need to be monitored on a “continuous basis.” For LEED EB continuous means at least every 15 minutes.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 6 - Q#1We would like to give feedback on the credit interpretation ruling shown below.

LEED EB-Pilot: E&A-C3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2(Check number of Q being referenced) Indicates that the requirements are to monitor indoor environmental parameters and lists specifically; CO2, temperature and humidity. Are these items examples or absolute requirements for the credit, please clarify? Specifically, is CO2 monitoring an absolute requirement for this credit? Source of question: Pentagon Renovation, Wedge 2 - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: To earn this credit all three of these environmental parameters must be monitored: CO2, temperature and humidity.

The intent of continuous commissioning is to ensure that building systems operate optimally over time, without degradation in performance. We believe that requiring CO2 control does not support that intent, but rather, the credit should allow flexibility in determining if CO2 control is appropriate and cost-effective for each facility. Indoor Environmental Quality Credit #1: CO2 Monitoring already awards facilities for implementing CO2 control. The continuous commissioning credit should not preclude facilities that promote good indoor air quality through other means besides measuring CO2, such as dedicated outdoor air fans or well-calibrated variable volume system outdoor air modulation. Implementing a continuous commissioning program at every facility is integral to the persistence of savings – the focus of the credit should be verifying correct operation over time, not prescribing a specific system configuration.

In further comment, we believe that the wording of the credit does not accurately describe the continuous commissioning process. The current wording requires a facility to

“Monitor indoor environmental parameters (CO2, temperature, humidity) on a daily basis to ensure building systems are operating properly to meet standards for indoor environmental quality and energy efficiency…”

This statement misses the heart of what commissioning is about; simply monitoring IEQ does not ensure efficient operation. Operators that solely focus on eliminating complaints and providing good indoor environmental quality often do so while masking inefficiencies. Retrocommissioning routinely finds facilities that are comfortable but have the opportunity to reduce energy cost by 15%. We believe the intent of LEED-EB is to investigate and optimize facilities through the use of a retrocommissioning process and then ensure that optimization in ongoing operations with a continuous commissioning process. We propose that the wording of this credit be changed to:

“monitor key system parameters identified through the retrocommissioning process (temperatures, flows, and pressures) on a daily basis to ensure building

74


systems are operating properly to meet standards for indoor environmental quality and energy efficiency…”

As a part of completing the retrocommissioning process, the commissioning provider can identify these key system parameters based on the known problem areas at the facility. These indicators can be used to continuously commission the facility. Source of Question: Hatfield Federal Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

As stated in the response to LEED EB-Pilot (Group 6: E&A-C3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2(Check number of Q being referenced) : “To earn this credit all three of these environmental parameters must be monitored: CO2, temperature and humidity.” The point of this credit is to encourage the monitoring of the actual conditions being delivered in the building.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C3.1 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:EAc3.1 - Continuous Existing Building Commissioning and IEQc7.1We have a two story building which has uses a source water loop to reject or store water for heating and cooling. The building has a dedicated mechanical/plenum room which houses a single common return air fan. The outdoor air duct is connected to the inlet duct of this return fan and is currently controlled by time of day events. In the mechanical/plenum room is an assortment of unitary water to air heat pumps which take air from the mechanical/plenum room space and discharge to their dedicated spaces. Our current configuration is without humidification. Are we required to install humidification and dehumidification systems to meet the requirements of this credit. The CO2 monitoring situation from the previous question may also apply to this credit as well. If I am not currently controlling or monitoring a specific condition is it required to be monitored and controlled? IEQ credit 7.1 states controlling thermal standards "including humidity control". Is IEQ credit 7.1 obtainable with a system which is without humidification? Source of Question: Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C3.1 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1See response to Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C7.1 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1:To earn these credits, the level of humidity in the building needs to be monitored as specified, whether or not equipment for increasing or decreasing humidity levels is present in the building. Measuring the humidity is part of knowing what conditions are actually being delivered in the building. The equipment for monitoring humidity levels must be integrated with control equipment to control humidity and humidity must be maintained with in the boundaries of no more than 45% relative humidity in the cooling season and no less than 25% relative humidity in the heating season. (Note: These performance standards are based on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania humidity performance standards developed and adopted for office buildings)

An exemption may be granted to the requirement that humidity be maintained with in these bounds, if the regional climate is such that it is not customary in the region to install equipment to increase or decrease humidity levels in either the winter or the summer. To earn such an exemption, documentation must be provided demonstrating that either in the winter or in the summer or in both seasons, it is not customary in the region for humidity to be controlled.

75


As stated in response to LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C3.1 - QUESTION GROUP 6 - Q#1: To earn this credit all three of these environmental parameters must be monitored: CO2, temperature and humidity.

Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 4: Additional Ozone Protection

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1This credit appears to conflict with Energy and Atmosphere Prerequisite 3. Prerequisite 3

allows CFCs or HCFCs leakage up to 10 percent in the facility. This credit discusses a leakage requirement of 5 percent or less. Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

This Credit provides a point to building owners for reducing leakage below 5% which is a higher level of achievement than 10 % maximum leakage level that must be achieved to meet the Energy and Atmosphere, Prerequisite 3.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1EA Credit 4-Additional Ozone Protection. I understand the reasoning behind eliminating

purchasing new equipment containing CFCs or HCFCs. What if a piece of cooling equipment is necessary that only comes supplied with HCFC (for example, it seems Liebert units are supplied with R-22 only)? Janssen is willing to adopt a plan that states any new cooling equipment purchased will utilize HFC unless there is a specific case where HFC-charged cooling equipment is unavailable. Is this acceptable? Source of Question: Janssen Pharmaceutica via Johnson Controls Inc – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

This point can be earned only if there is no use of equipment containing HCFCs or halons.

Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 5: Measurement and Verification

Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 5.1-5.3: Measurement and Verification, Metering

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 6 - Q#1Requirement states: "Comply with the installed equipment requirements for continuous metering as stated in Option B: Methods by Technology of the U.S. DOE's International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP)." Where can I obtain a copy of the IPMVP document? Source of Question: Ada County, ID – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

76


These documents can be ordered from the US DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse at (800) DOE-EREC (800/363-3732). Ask for: IPMVP Vol. I – Concepts and Options for Determining Energy Savings and IPMVP Vol. II – Concepts and Practices for Improved IEQ.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2Could these points be viewed as a group of 11 actions? Doing any 3 of these actions earns 1 point, doing any 7 of these action earns 2 points and doing any 11 of these action earns 3 points? Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

Yes, these 3 points can be viewed as a group of 11 actions and doing any 3 of these actions earns 1 point, doing any 7 of these action earns 2 points and doing any 11 of these action earns 3 points.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Do you have any examples of M & V plans from other projects?Source of Question: Nike – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Not yet. Once a number of LEED EB applications are received, examples of M&V plans will be prepared and made available to LEED EB Pilot Participants.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1The lighting control system on this facility is a stand alone system and is not tied into the energy management control system. It is not possible to "continuously monitor" the building's lighting with this system. However, unless schedules are re-programmed on this system, the lighting electrical loads will remain constant. Could the intent of this credit be met if loads and corresponding schedules were manually entered into a calculation spreadsheet, and then updated if the loads or schedules are changed at some point in the future? Source of Question: James Hatfield Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The objective of this credit is to encourage and reward the measurement of actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time. If actual use or performance is different from performance targets, that measured actual use or performance, will draw attention to this so action can be taken to identify the causes of this shortfall in performance and to develop and implement solutions. Calculations of estimated energy use by lights does not address this objective.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#2Unlike some building system components which would seem appropriate targets for continuous monitoring, the local utility (NW Natural) recommends monitoring a boiler once per year. We seek guidance on what the monitoring requirement is for boiler systems. Source of Question: James Hatfield Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

77


The objective of this credit is to encourage and reward the measurement of actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time. Annual measurements of combustion efficiency for boilers is adequate to be one of the measures use to earn points under these credits.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#3The measurement and verification group of credits requires monitoring of prescribed aspects of building operations. As participants in the LEED-EB Pilot program, we have a number of comments to share relating to the structure of these credits that stem from our retro-commissioning experience.

1. While many of these monitoring areas are reasonable to expect in typical buildings, they do not address monitoring of building-specific problems. Instead of focusing monitoring efforts in prescribed areas, monitoring the most significant improvements made during commissioning will ensure persistence of the bulk of the energy savings. We suggest that all measurement and verification points be flexible enough to be customized to the needs of the building. For example, if a facility has a specialist come in for boiler combustion efficiency testing and maintenance once or twice a year (i.e. adjusting the O2/fuel ratio over the entire firing range of the burner and cleaning all heat transfer surfaces yearly), tracking boiler efficiency over time is not the most cost effective use of scarce operator time. Instead, monitoring could focus on the known problem areas that were found during the retro-commissioning process (for example, improved boiler staging or discharge temperature control).

2. Operator response to each prescribed monitoring point should be carefully considered. The action to undertake as a result of the monitoring needs to be clear. For example, by monitoring kW/ton for the chillers, operators can see when chiller maintenance may be necessary. For other monitoring points, the purpose of monitoring is not as clear. For example, monitoring cooling load does not directly lead to an operator response if the cooling loads are high or low. The loads may be high or low for a number of reasons, including ambient conditions, occupancy, or simultaneous heating and cooling. Without drilling down to a finer level of detail in the monitoring, there may be no actionable item.

3. The most needed areas of monitoring identified in retro-commissioning are underrepresented in the prescribed monitoring points: system interactions and software overrides. For example, monitoring boiler and chiller efficiency continuously tells you something about one piece of the system, but nothing about how the central systems are responding to the loads they serve. Alternatively, monitoring should address the stability of system operation and interactions. Another area of significance relates to monitoring and alarming on “software overrides”. Many times operators will override a piece of equipment or operating parameter and command it to perform a specific function in response to perceived system operation or comfort complaints. Many times these overrides are forgotten and system operation can be compromised for extended periods of time. Most BAS systems can be programmed to regularly alarm on software overrides (for example every day or two) to remind operators that a point has been overridden and ensure overrides are not left in place longer than necessary.

78


Below, some example building-specific problems and their corresponding operator responses are listed as potential M&V areas. The intent is not to prescribe these areas, but rather, each building needs to be able to customize their monitoring to their problem areas.

Hydronic valve modulation and discharge air temperature stability

Check that valves are not 100% open when there is little load. Check that discharge air temperature is stable.

Key control sensors Check that values make sense, and sensor is not bad.

Stability in controlled variables Check for oscillations outside of a range.Air handler pull down time or optimal start/stop operation

Make sure air handlers not started too early or turned off too late

Setpoints Check for ability to meet setpoints, including significant oscillations outside of setpoint.

Building pressurization Make sure building is not negatively pressurized.

Software override Check for software overrides that disable efficiency measures.

In summary, we propose that the USGBC consider changing the Measurement and Verification credits to allow LEED-EB participants flexibility in selecting the specific M&V areas according to the needs of the building. A list of potential M&V areas still could be provided for clarification of the credit’s intent, but the facility would not be limited to the list. Source of Comments: James Hatfield Courthouse – LEED EB ProjectResponse: The objective of this credit is to encourage and reward the metering and sub-metering of actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time and to identify use or performance variations from target levels so that attention is called to the need to identify and solve the problems that are causing the variation from target levels of use or performance. The LEED EB Pilot has shown that many buildings do not sub-meter energy and water use so they do not know the distribution of usage and as a result, do not know the opportunities and needs for usage reductions. For equipment and systems the objective is to encourage ongoing measurement of performance efficiency so if efficiency declines this can be rapidly identified and actions taken to restore efficiency. For boilers the exception has be made to this ongoing monitoring requirement to allow annual efficiency checks to qualify as a measure that can be used to earn points under these credits. Existing commissioning activities are addressed in LEED EB EA Prerequisite 1.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#7In comment to your response to Question (EBP-EA-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP __ -

Q3) (Check number of Q being referenced), we would like to provide further clarification and request that the response be reconsidered. Our feedback below is followed by the original question and response.

Feedback:

79


Ongoing monitoring requirements need to be more flexible and based on the actual needs of the building. The previous LEED-EB committee response states that, “The objective of this credit is to encourage and reward the metering and sub-metering of actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time.” Choosing from 11 specific M&V tasks does not provide sufficient flexibility in creating the most effective M&V plan.

For example, if a facility has heat pumps rather than chillers, they should be allowed to perform M&V on the heat pump system and receive credit within LEED for that. Similarly, if a facility’s discharge air temperature control and reset schedule were a chronic problem, then they would be smart to include that system in their M&V plan. According to the current LEED requirements, neither the heat pump nor discharge air temperature cases would count towards M&V credit.

We propose that the USGBC consider changing the Measurement and Verification credits to allow LEED-EB participants flexibility in selecting the specific M&V areas according to the needs of the building. A list of potential M&V areas still could be provided for clarification of the credit’s intent, but the facility would not be limited to the list.

Comments on the current list are provided below.M&V options Notes1. Lighting systems and controls In this document, see comment #5.2. Building electric meters3. Indoor water risers and

outdoor irrigation systems4. Chiller efficiency at variable

loads5. Cooling load Monitoring cooling load may not be appropriate for M&V

since load depends highly on ambient conditions and building usage patterns.

6. Air and water economizer and heat recovery cycle operation

These M&V activities should not be lumped together, since very few buildings have all three. A building should select airside economizer, waterside economizer, or heat recovery cycle operation as separate categories. A building that has all three cycles should receive credit for performing these M&V tasks individually, otherwise they are penalized compared to a building that only has an airside economizer and is (presumably) exempt from the waterside economizer and heat recovery operation M&V.

7. Boiler efficiencies Monitoring once per year is sufficient. This leniency based on the individual measure should be considered for other measures as it makes sense.

8. Building-specific process energy efficiency systems and equipment

9. Constant and variable motor loads

Monitoring a constant motor load is not necessary – a spot check would suffice.

10. VFD operation

80


11. Air distribution static pressures and ventilation air volumes

These M&V activities should not be lumped together, since the static pressure in a supply duct is not directly related to the amount of outside (ventilation) air brought into a building. Perhaps change this to “Supply fan speed and outside air volume”, which is a typical problem with VAV systems.

The following is a comment previously submitted by PECI, and the response to this comments produced by USGBC. Please take a careful look at our feedback (above) to those comments and let us know whether you can modify or expand your initial responses based on our comments.

Previous comment submitted by PECI regarding M&V credits and the USGBC response:The measurement and verification group of credits requires monitoring of prescribed aspects of

building operations. As participants in the LEED-EB Pilot program, we have a number of comments to share relating to the structure of these credits that stem from our retrocommissioning experience.

1. While many of these monitoring areas are reasonable to expect in typical buildings, they do not address monitoring of building-specific problems. Instead of focusing monitoring efforts in prescribed areas, monitoring the most significant improvements made during commissioning will ensure persistence of the bulk of the energy savings. We suggest that all measurement and verification points be flexible enough to be customized to the needs of the building. For example, if a facility has a specialist come in for boiler combustion efficiency testing and maintenance once or twice a year (i.e. adjusting the O2/fuel ratio over the entire firing range of the burner and cleaning all heat transfer surfaces yearly), tracking boiler efficiency over time is not the most cost effective use of scarce operator time. Instead, monitoring could focus on the known problem areas that were found during the retrocommissioning process (for example, improved boiler staging or discharge temperature control).

2. Operator response to each prescribed monitoring point should be carefully considered. The action to undertake as a result of the monitoring needs to be clear. For example, by monitoring kW/ton for the chillers, operators can see when chiller maintenance may be necessary. For other monitoring points, the purpose of monitoring is not as clear. For example, monitoring cooling load does not directly lead to an operator response if the cooling loads are high or low. The loads may be high or low for a number of reasons, including ambient conditions, occupancy, or simultaneous heating and cooling. Without drilling down to a finer level of detail in the monitoring, there may be no actionable item.

3. The most needed areas of monitoring identified in retrocommissioning are underrepresented in the prescribed monitoring points: system interactions and software overrides. For example, monitoring boiler and chiller efficiency continuously tells you something about one piece of the system, but nothing about how the central systems are responding to the loads they serve. Alternatively, monitoring should address the stability of system operation and interactions. Another area of significance relates to monitoring and alarming on “software overrides”. Many times operators will override a piece of equipment or operating parameter and command it to perform a specific function in response to perceived system operation or comfort complaints. Many times these overrides are forgotten and system operation can be compromised for extended periods of

81


time. Most BAS systems can be programmed to regularly alarm on software overrides (for example every day or two) to remind operators that a point has been overridden and ensure overrides are not left in place longer than necessary.

Below, some example building-specific problems and their corresponding operator responses are listed as potential M&V areas. The intent is not to prescribe these areas, but rather, each building needs to be able to customize their monitoring to their problem areas. Hydronic valve modulation and discharge air temperature stability

Check that valves are not 100% open when there is little load. Check that discharge air temperature is stable.

Key control sensors Check that values make sense, and sensor is not bad.Stability in controlled variables Check for oscillations outside of a range.Air handler pull down time or optimal start/stop operation

Make sure air handlers not started too early or turned off too late

Setpoints Check for ability to meet setpoints, including significant oscillations outside of setpoint.

Building pressurization Make sure building is not negatively pressurized.Software override Check for software overrides that disable efficiency

measures.

In summary, we propose that the USGBC consider changing the Measurement and Verification credits to allow LEED-EB participants flexibility in selecting the specific M&V areas according to the needs of the building. A list of potential M&V areas still could be provided for clarification of the credit’s intent, but the facility would not be limited to the list.

Response The objective of this credit is to encourage and reward the metering and sub-metering of

actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time. The LEED EB Pilot has shown that many buildings do not sub-meter energy and water use so they do not know the distribution of usage and as a result, do not know the opportunities and needs for usage reductions. For equipment and systems the objective is to encourage ongoing measurement of performance efficiency so if efficiency declines this can be rapidly identified and actions taken to restore efficiency. For boilers the exception has be made to this ongoing monitoring requirement to allow annual efficiency checks to qualify as a measure that can be used to earn points under these credits. Existing commissioning activities are addressed in LEED EB EA Prerequisite 1.Source of Question: Hatfield Federal Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: (1) Air economizer monitoring, water economizer monitoring and heat recovery cycle monitoring

can all be considered separate actions under this credit(2) Air distribution static pressures monitoring and monitoring of ventilation air volume can be

considered separate actions under this credit(3) Boiler efficiency can be checked once a year and qualify as a completed action under this

credit(4) Monitoring building pressurization can be considered an action under this creditUsers of LEED-EB can propose the addition of additional actions to the list of qualifying actions under this credit for consideration by the LEED-EB Committee. There are many other positive

82


things building owners and operators can do to improve building performance but as stated previously, the objective of this particular credit is to encourage and reward the metering and sub-metering of actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1We would like to give feedback on the credit interpretation ruling shown below. Question (EBP-EA-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q1) (Check number of Q being referenced)The lighting control system on this facility is a stand-alone system and is not tied into the energy management control system. It is not possible to "continuously monitor" the building's lighting with this system. However, unless schedules are reprogrammed on this system, the lighting electrical loads will remain constant. Could the intent of this credit be met if loads and corresponding schedules were manually entered into a calculation spreadsheet, and then updated if the loads or schedules are changed at some point in the future?Source of Question: Hatfield Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse (EBP-EA-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q1): The objective of this credit is to encourage and reward the measurement of actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time. Calculations of estimated energy use by lights does not address this objective.

Feedback:Unless schedules or lighting sweeps are modified on this system or the lights are

overridden ON, the lighting electrical loads will remain consistent. By monitoring lighting schedules, sweep controls, and logging override functions, they will be able to detect any inefficiencies in their lighting operation.

When monitoring lighting consumption directly, the data must be analyzed to determine if the lighting loads are appropriate. By merely measuring the lighting loads, there is no actionable item for operators. Therefore, lighting schedules and adjustable lighting controls (including checking lighting sweep settings and logging override operation) would have be checked to determine if the lighting loads were appropriate or not. For this reason, we are requesting that the intent of M&V credit for lighting monitoring be met by monitoring lighting schedules and adjustable lighting controls (like lighting sweep) on a weekly basis. The lighting override would be monitored continuously to determine how often the override was enabled. The goal of the credit is to identify problems and fix operation – monitoring lighting schedules and adjustable controls are a direct and more cost-effective way to achieve that goal. Source of Question: Hatfield Federal Courthouse – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

There are many other positive things building owners and operators can do to improve building performance but as stated previously, the objective of this particular credit is to encourage and reward the metering and sub-metering of actual energy use, water use and other actual performance data that can be used to monitor and improve performance over time.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:EA 5.1-5.3: Measurement & Verification -What is meant by "indoor water risers" and how would this be metered?

83


Source of Question: Vineyard 29 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse – LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:Indoor water risers mean the piping used to deliver water to indoor water uses in the buildings. In most buildings the supply of water for many purposes is delivered through the same supply pipes. For example the water for site irrigation, fixture water use in the building, water for process water use in the building may all be served off the same piping. One strategy for measuring the fixture water use is to measure to total building water use and then subtract the measured water use for other purposes including site irrigation and water for process water use in the building.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#2:EA Credit 5.1-5.3 - Measurement and Verification Looking for definition for "Cooling Loads" and "Chiller efficiency at variable loads (kw/ton)" from the actions list. Also, can you give examples of air and water economizers and what/how these can be meter/controlled.Source of Question: Knoll, Inc.– LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse – LEED-EB PILOT - EA-C5.1-5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#2:Here are the definitions requested:(a) Cooling Loads – This is the amount of cooling being demanded by the building to maintain the

desired indoor environmental conditions.(b) Chiller efficiency at variable loads (kw/ton) - this is the amount of cooling being delivered per

unit of electricity.(c) Air and water economizers and what/how these can be meter/controlled. An Air Economizer is a ducting arrangement and automatic control system that allows a

cooling supply fan system to supply outside air to reduce or eliminate the need for mechanical refrigeration during mild or cold weather. The measurement system needs to determine how much of the cooling loads is being met by the economizer.

A Water Economizer is a system by which the supply air of a cooling system is cooled directly, indirectly or both, by evaporation of water or by other appropriate fluid in order to reduce or eliminate the need for mechanical refrigeration. The measurement system needs to determine how much of the cooling loads is being met by the economizer.

Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 5.4: Energy Savings and Emissions Reductions

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 4 - Q#1(a) Are there any alternate methods or programs to qualify for this credit? (b) Our project used Energy Star, which reports emission reductions. (c) If we write a letter stating that we will not sell our emission credits, would that meet the intent of ‘retiring’ emission reductions? (d) Also, what is the cost to use the Cleaner and Greener program? (e) Can the C&G program be used only to retire, and Energy Star used to report? Source of question: King Street Center, King County, WA – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

84


(a) The Cleaner and Greenersm Program is a referenced standard in LEED EB the same way the CRS Green-E rating for renewable energy is a referenced standard in LEED EB. In both cases these standards are referenced as “use this standard or the equivalent.” In both cases LEED EB participants can propose alternatives if these alternatives are equivalent to the referenced standards. Since the Green-E standard has been in LEED for New Construction for a while, alternatives for that standard have already been brought froward and approved. Since the Cleaner and Greenersm standard is new in LEED EB, alternatives for this standard have not yet been brought froward and approved. The standards for equivalence to the Cleaner and Greenersm Program are listed below. These equivalence standards can be met with one program or a combination of several programs.

Energy efficiency actions by building owners in addition to saving energy and reducing energy cost deliver another benefit: the reduction in environmental emissions. Currently building owners do not receive financial rewards for the emission reductions delivered by their energy efficiency improvements. The Cleaner and Greener Programsm provides a foundation for moving toward rectifying this inequity by recognizing the emission reduction benefits of energy efficiency delivered by energy efficiency improvements. These improvements are implemented by building owners and by build a framework and constituency for building owners to receive financial rewards in the future for the emission reductions delivered by their energy efficiency improvements.

The standards for equivalence to the Cleaner and Greenersm Program: (1) To be equivalent to the Cleaner and Greenersm Program the alternate program(s) needs to

calculate the energy saving relative to a baseline energy use. This baseline must represent the energy use that would have occurred if the energy saving feature had not been installed.

(2) To be equivalent to the Cleaner and Greenersm Program the alternate program(s) needs to calculate all types of emission reductions resulting from the reductions in energy use. This provides recognition of the full range of emission reduction benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy. This also provides the foundation for retiring some of each type of emission reductions delivered by energy efficiency improvements. The types of emission reductions currently addressed by the Cleaner and Greenersm Program for electricity use reduction are: CO2, SO2, NOx, Hg, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, and CO.

(3) To be equivalent to the Cleaner and Greenersm Program the alternate program(s) needs to provide reporting of the energy savings and emission reductions identified in (1) and (2) to a third party organization that tracks emission reductions from energy efficiency for the purpose of recognition and/or retirement and/or trading. This provides the foundation for the retirement of some of the emission reductions so they can never be traded (see criteria (4) below).

(4) To be equivalent to the Cleaner and Greenersm Program the alternate program(s) needs to provide retirement of emission reductions to a third party. This is accomplished by assigning the emission reductions to a third party for permanent retirement.

(5) To be equivalent to the Cleaner and Greenersm Program the alternate program(s) needs to document that the building owner’s suppliers have been asked to do the same action the building owner implements to earn this credit. There must be documentation of follow-up with these suppliers to encourage them to carry out these actions and thereby reduce emissions up the supply chain.

85


(b) In regard to your question on whether Energy Star Building Benchmarking can be used for calculating and reporting emission reductions for the building, the following answer is based on which of the identified equivalence standards the Energy Star program meets. According to the Energy Star Program, the Energy Star Building Benchmarking Tool calculates the emissions of CO2, SOx, and NOx for the specific case and what these emissions would be if the building had an Energy Star Building Benchmarking score of 75. Energy Star does not calculate the emission reductions relative to a baseline energy use or provide for reporting of these emission reductions to EPA. As a result, since Energy Star does not calculate the emissions reductions relative to the building’s baseline, it does not provide reporting of emission reductions and does not address equivalence criteria (1). Additionally, since it does not address emissions of Hg, PM10, PM2.5, VOC, and CO it does not address equivalence criteria (2). (c) To meet equivalence criteria (3), emission reduction retirements need to be handled by assigning the emission reductions to a third party for retirement. Writing a letter stating that an organization will not sell the emission credits does not meet this equivalence standard.(d) The Cleaner and Greenersm Program is provided as a service by the Leonardo Academy, a charitable 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization. There is no cost for participating in the Cleaner and Greenersm Program at Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 which cover the actions identified in LEED EB Energy Credit 5.4(e) Yes, it is acceptable to use several different programs to earn this point, as long as when taken together the programs used meet all of the equivalence standards.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2Where can a copy of cleaner and greener emission reduction reporting program and

standards be obtained?Source of Question: Ada County, ID – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

A copy of all these materials can be downloaded from:http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/certification/index.htm.

Energy and Atmosphere, Credit 6: Green Power

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Please clarify what is meant by this statement: “Purchase power for the whole building

generated from renewable sources that meet the CRS Green-E requirements.” Does 100% of the electric load need to be met with Green Power? Also, “provide a copy of the electric utility purchase contract for power generated from renewable sources covering the last year and demonstrating that the entire building’s energy load was met by a green power provider.” Does this mean that if our utility company, Excel Energy, provides typical electricity and also provides green electricity if requested, then it is considered a “green power provider” even if we don’t purchase any of the green power? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

To earn this credit, 100% of the building electric purchases need to be Green Power that meets the CRS Green-E requirements and you need to document this by providing a power

86

http://www.cleanerandgreener.org/certification/index.htm


purchase contract or the electric bills that show that this has happened. Note: the CRS Green-E standard for green power (as of December 2002) requires that 50% of the power be from renewable sources and the remaining 50% be from generation that has emissions not greater than system average power. This 50 percent renewable requirement can also be met by the purchase of qualifying “Green Tags” which represent the environmental benefits of wind power.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#1I have been reviewing the LEED-EB Rating Pilot version and have a question for you

regarding green electricity. My understanding is that the Green Energy portion can be satisfied if the building receives a certain percentage of its electricity from a utility, or an ESP in deregulated markets, offering certified renewable products. Considering many areas donot have a green energy option available to them through a utility or ESP,has the possibility of using Green-e certified tradable credits to fulfill the green energy requirement been considered? Source of question: NUON Renewable Ventures USAResponse: See response above.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C6 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#3Where can a copy of Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) Green - E requirements or

standards be obtained?Source of Question: Ada County, ID – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Consult the following web site for the Green-e Standard program information: www.resource-solutions.org.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – E&A-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1This credit requires the building owner to engage and maintain a contract to purchase

power for the whole building generated from renewable sources that meet the Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) Green-E requirements or meets equivalent standards. How does this credit apply on a campus basis? For example if a University of a Military Base purchases Green-E power on a campus basis, does this qualify for these credits? If this does qualify, the user would have to document the total Green-E power purchased and document how the power is disseminated to each facility to ensure that the power is not double counted. Can a campus-based purchase of Green-E power with proper documentation qualify for this credit? Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

Yes, the 1 point available under EA Credit 6 can be earned on a campus basis. There are two possible approaches: One approach would be for the there to be a purchase of green power that is dedicated to service the building in the LEED EB Pilot. In this case the documentation would need to show: (1) that the energy from this renewable energy purchase is dedicated to this building, (2) the amount of Renewable energy purchased and, (3) the fraction of the buildings load this represents. A second approach would be for the there to be a renewable energy purchase that serves all the campus buildings including the building in the LEED EB Pilot. In this case the documentation would need to show: (1) that the energy from this renewable energy purchase

87

http://www.resource-solutions.org/


serves all campus buildings, (2) the amount of energy purchased and, (3) the fraction of the campus load is served by this renewable energy purchase represents. In this case the fraction of the campus load being served by this renewable energy purchase serves is also the fraction of the individual building’s load that is being served.

88


Section 4: Materials and Resources

Materials and Resources, Prerequisite 1: Waste Management

Materials and Resources, Prerequisite 1.1: Waste Management, Waste Stream Audit and Reduction Program

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-P1.1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1The project consists of a complex of office buildings with a common cafeteria. In all

buildings aluminum and paper are recycled. Also toner cartridges, office supplies & batteries are recycled in the office buildings and polystyrene (#6) is collected for incineration fuel by a power plant. The cafeteria generates a very small amount of glass and plastic bottles but does not provide recycling for these 2 materials. As the amounts are so small it was deemed more appropriate to focus on the main components of the waste stream. Is this acceptable? Answers to these two questions will effect the project's ability to qualify for EB certification, and determine whether or not the owner can still participate in the Pilot. Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

The requirement is to provide recycling for all these specified materials. The goal is to create demand for recycling service providers and to get these materials recycled.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-P1.1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2What exactly are you looking for in regards to the waste stream audit? Is it possible to

provide an example?Source of Question: A.J. Martini – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

At a minimum, the waste stream audit needs to analyze a sufficient sample of the building’s waste to support an estimate of each of the components of the waste stream. This includes the amounts of paper, glass, metal and plastic so that a waste reduction plan (Procurement & Management Policies) can be developed and implemented.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-P1.1 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Intent: Establish minimum recycling program elements and quantify current waste stream production volume.

Question/Comment:To capture this credit, we intend to conduct a waste stream audit in our current office building prior to moving into our new existing building. Our waste stream will not change between the two buildings, since our new existing building is also being used as office space. In conjunction with a waste stream audit, procurement/management policies will be implemented to reduce the waste stream. This approach will allow us to start the documentation early. Will this approach be accepted? Source of Question: Karges-Faulconbridge BuildingResponse:

89


As long as the two buildings are the same size and are being used by the same organization conducting the same activities, auditing the waste stream at the first building and using this information to plan the recycling and source reduction program for the new building would be acceptable.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-P1.1 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1The building owners have set up a program for collecting the building's recycleables, and

under that program they are segregating material into 4 categories: mixed paper, aluminum, glass, and plastic. They believe the LEED EB language requires segregation into these four categories. Section on Materials and Resources, Prerequisite #1 Waste Management "Provide/maintain .recycling area that serves entire building and is dedicated to separation, collection, and storage of materials for recycling including (at a minimum) paper, glass, plastics and metals."

The problem is that Waste Management, which collects the recycleables at our bldg. only picks up two categories. They put the mixed paper in one bin and then combine the aluminum, glass and plastic into a second bin. So in effect we have to two recycle streams leaving the building. We at the EPA office believe the process would be more efficient, and that we'd get greater participation throughout the bldg. if we didn't make the attempt to the attempt to segregate into four categories as a very strict interpretation the LEED EB language might suggest. However the bldg. owners worry that segregating into two categories (mixed paper and mixed aluminum, plastic glass) will cause them to lose the LEED points. Source of Question: U.S. EPA Regional Office in DenverResponse:

The intent of this credit would be met if you can document that waste management service provider (Waste Management) does, in fact, sort the recylables into the four categories once offsite of your facility and if fact recycle them. Provide a letter documenting that the waste management service provider does this separation and recycling.

Materials and Resources, Prerequisite 1.2: Waste Management, Recycling Facilities

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-P1.2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Do recycling facilities need to address all the listed materials: paper, glass, plastic, and

metals? Source of Question: Kansas City, City Hall - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Yes, the recycling facilities need to address all the listed materials: paper, glass, plastic, and metals.

Materials and Resources, Prerequisite 1.3: Waste Management, Reduction of Mercury in Light Bulbs Purchased.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-P1.3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1

90


How is the mercury content of a mercury containing light bulb calculated in parts per million? Source of Question: Kansas City, City Hall – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-P1.3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1

To calculate the mercury content of a mercury containing light bulb in parts per million: (1) Divide the weight of the total mercury content of the light bulb by the total weight of the light bulb, (2) Multiply the result by 1,000,000.

Question – LEED-EB Pilot - MR-P1.3-QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1:Regarding MRP-1.3, the supplier has stated that this prerequisite is not possible to meet

with their lowest mercury products. We ran the calc. and indeed are not meeting the requirement of 90 picograms per lumen hour.1. Has this been a problem on other LEED-EB applications?2. Will not meeting one prerequisite prevent getting LEED-EB certification?Source of Question: McKinstry Co. Response – LEED-EB Pilot – MR-P1.3 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1:

When a building owner or manger buys mercury containing light bulbs they are bringing a bio accumulating toxic material into their building. This prerequisite is designed to provide source reduction that reduces the amount of mercury brought into buildings by building owners an operators in lamps. The picograms of mercury per lumen hour approach captures all three factors that affect the total amount of mercury brought into lamps over time: mercury content, lamp life and lamp light output.

To meet this prerequisite use the following process:(1) Prepare a list of the each type of light bulb used in the buildings and the number of each type

of light bulb.(2) Give this list of lamp types to all available lighting suppliers and ask them to provide you with

a list of the appropriate light bulbs for each application in your building and the mercury content on each type of bulb in milligrams, the mean light output of the lamp and the life of the lamp.

Ask all lighting suppliers to include light bulbs manufactured by the light bulb manufacturers’ parent companies or affiliates in Europe since Europe seems to be ahead of the USA on reducing the mercury content of light bulbs.

Since the building owner is liable for the toxic bio-accumulating mercury they bring into their buildings in lamps, it would also be prudent from a risk mitigation perspective to ask each lighting supplier to provide MSDS sheets for each type of lamp with the mercury content of each type of light bulb stated in milligrams.

(3) Using the information you receive on mercury content, life and light output for each type of lamp and the Pico Gram per Lumen-Hour Calculator spread sheet, put together a group of light bulbs for the building that on a weighted average basis meet the pico gram per lumen hour requirement. Remember that some lamps can have higher mercury contents than overall building 90

pico gram per lumen hour requirement as long as this is compensated for by other lamps that are below the than overall building 90 pico gram per lumen hour requirement.

Remember that you can use lamps for multiple suppliers.

Question – EB Pilot - MR-P1.3 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:MR Prerequisite 1.3: Mercury Reduction in Lighting -

91


As explained under the SS Prerequisite questions above, this project is an atypical LEED-EB project, in that it is a relatively new building (completed summer 2003) and it was completed before the team became aware of the existence of LEED-EB. Therefore, LEED-EB guidelines were not being used during design and construction. LEED-EB is being applied to the project retroactively and with an emphasis on addressing future operations and maintenance issues for the building. As it would be counterproductive and wasteful to remove and replace fairly new lamps that are still working, we hope that the project can achieve this prerequisite by committing itself to the purchase of low-mercury lamps for all future lamp replacements (through a purchasing policy), and would not be required to demonstrate that low-mercury lamps have already been installed or required to provide calcs showing that the less than 25 ppm goal has been met. (Of course if any lamps do need to be replaced before the pilot application binder is submitted, they will be replaced with low-mercury lamps and the purchase records would then be provided.)Source of Question: Vineyard 29 – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse – EB Pilot - MR-P1.3 - QUESTION GROUP 15 - Q#1:This prerequisite addresses going forward purchases of light bulbs containing mercury, so the existing light bulbs in the building do not need to be replaced before the end o their useful life. The actions needed are: (1) Adopting a policy to meet the low mercury lamp requirement, (2) Prepare a lamp purchasing plan for meeting the low mercury requirement, (3) Implement the lamp purchasing plan for meeting the low mercury requirement and document that it is followed on a going forward basis. Use the pico gram of mercury content per lumen hour of light output approach to this prerequisite that is described in the LEED-EB Reference Guide. Please see response LEED-EB Pilot, Questions Group14 - MR-P1 - Q1 for guidance on implementing the pico gram of mercury content per lumen hour approach.

Materials and Resources, Credit 1: Continued Existing Building Use

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1The requirement that 100% of the shell continue to be used is not practical because there

are frequently minor changes to the exterior of existing buildings. Source of Question: Verbal QuestionResponse:

The goal of this credit is to provide a practical and simplified version of the 3 points available for building reuse in LEED for New Construction. The 90% reuse of the building exterior is set at a required level of reuse to earn this point in the LEED EB pilot and this 90% building exterior reuse standard for earning this credit will be included in the initial ballot draft of LEED for Existing Buildings.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1These credits are both credits for occupying an existing building. One credit is

questionable. Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

92


This was carefully considered in the development of the Pilot Draft of LEED EB. A review of LEED NC leads to the conclusions that LEED NC highly values reuse of existing sites and buildings and minimizing site environmental impacts. Credits in LEED NC include: SS Credit (1 point), MR Credit 1.1 (1 point),1.2 (1 point), and 1.3 (1 point). This means LEED for NC provides up to 4 points for reducing site impacts of site selection and for reuse of building components. The LEED EB participant reusing a whole building is even better for the environment than a LEED NC participant using components of an existing building. For this reason under M&R Credit 1 one point was included in LEED EB for continuing to use an existing building.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1INTENT: Extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain

cultural resources, reduce waste, and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport. The essence of this credit is already contained in LEED 2.0/2.1. Stewart Brand author of “How Buildings Learn” provides many examples of what happens to buildings after they are built and points out that form follows function is a lie. Form freezes function but that life charges on and pushes mere materials out of the way. Roofs are raised; concrete walls are not that hard to cut. The real action is at the levels of Services, Space plan, and Stuff that fill the building. Yes we want to preserve resources by using existing building stock and credit is given in LEED 2.0 to encourage this intent.

Recommend: Eliminating this credit because it is not an operational issue and is alreadycontained in LEED 2.0/2.1. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

On issue of providing points in LEED EB for continue use of an existing building: This was carefully considered in the development of the Pilot Draft of LEED EB. A review of LEED NC leads to the conclusions that LEED NC highly values reuse of existing sites and buildings and resulting reduction in site and materials environmental impacts. Credits in LEED NC include: SS Credit (1 point), MR Credit 1.1 (1 point), 1.2 (1 point), and 1.3 (1 point). This means LEED for NC provides up to 4 points for reducing site and materials environmental impacts through site reuse and for reuse of building components. The LEED EB participant reusing a whole building is providing even greater environmental benefits than a LEED NC participant using some components of an existing building. For this reason, under LEED EB up to 2 credits are provided for continuing to occupy an existing building: SS Credit 1 and M&R Credit 1.

On the issue of the roles of LEED EB and LEED NC: LEED EB is based on LEED NC and is designed to provide a comprehensive rating system for the operation and upgrades of existing buildings. LEED EB is designed to cover all the sustainability issues raised in LEED NC but from the perspective of existing buildings. LEED EB is also designed to cover all the sustainability issues raised by building operation that do not arise in LEED NC. As a result the fact that an issue is addressed in LEED NC does not mean it should be left out of LEED EB.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1The LEED-EB draft offers up to two points for using an existing building. Mike Arny

confirmed that it is expected that every LEED-EB project will be awarded this credit(s). He

93


explained that this point(s) is/are needed to recognize the environmental benefit of reusing existing buildings, especially when LEED-EB projects are compared with projects rated under other LEED products.

Recommendation: The MR TAG is opposed to having credits that are automatically achieved. They are counter-intuitive in a point-based rating system, and they dilute the ability of the system to distinguish levels of achievement between the projects. There are other ways to address the concerns about parity with the other LEED products. (Group 11)Source of Question: Materials and Resources TAGResponse:

The requirement as written in Pilot Draft of LEED EB is the requirement that applies to all buildings that register during the LEED EB pilot to participate in LEED EB. Once LEED EB is balloted by the USGBC members, the requirement approved in the ballot will apply to buildings that register to participate in LEED EB after it has been balloted.

On the issue of providing points in LEED EB for continue use of an existing building: This was carefully considered in the development of the Pilot Draft of LEED EB. A review of LEED NC leads to the conclusions that LEED NC highly values reuse of existing sites and buildings and the resulting reduction in site and materials environmental impacts. Credits in LEED NC include: SS Credit (1 point), MR Credit 1.1 (1 point), 1.2 (1 point), and 1.3 (1 point). This means LEED for NC provides up to 4 points for reducing site and materials environmental impacts through site reuse and for reuse of building components. The LEED EB participant reusing a whole building is providing even greater environmental benefits than a LEED NC participant using some components of an existing building. For this reason, under LEED EB up to 2 credits are provided for continuing to occupy an existing building: SS Credit 1 and M&R Credit 1.

Consistency in what is valued in LEED NC and LEED EB where they address the same issues is important because this reflects and communicates the USGBC’s best understanding of what is sustainable building design and performance. Consistency is also important from an administrative perspective because LEED EB, in addition to being the rating system for bringing existing buildings into LEED, is also the re-rating system for buildings first certified under LEED NC.

If the LEED EB Committee and the MR TAG are unable to come to agreement this issue prior to the Ballot Draft of LEED EB being prepared, the LEED EB Committee will ask the LEED Steering Committee to resolve the issue of what to include in the Ballot Draft of LEED EB.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#1Is a signed statement that the applicant continues to occupy the building, that is being

submitted for LEED EB certification, sufficient to obtain this credit under the "Unballoted Draft for Pilot Program" (Jan. 2002) version? Source of Question: Karges Faulconbridge – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Yes. As stated in the documentation requirements for the Pilot Version of LEED EB: “Provide a signed statement that the applicant continues to occupy the building that is being submitted for LEED EB certification.”

Materials and Resources, Credit 2: Construction Waste Management

94


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1“Develop and implement a waste management specification for any future building retrofits, renovations, or modifications to the site.” Does this mean that we do not have to utilize this specification for the renovation project and that we only have to have the specification in place for future renovations? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

No. This means that the organization owning the building needs to adopt a policy implementing a waste management specification for any future building retrofits, renovations, or modifications to the site AND this policy needs to be followed for all construction in the building including current construction.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1Site clearing is not typically associated with existing buildings but with construction

projects. Additions need to follow LEED 2.0 criteria. This helps the two products to fit together and promotes consistency without duplication or conflict between the two products. Requiring 75% of the construction waste stream as a minimum is not consistent with LEED 2.0/2.1. It is hard enough to reach 75% recycle on new construction projects -- it will be even more difficult for existing buildings to meet this requirement. Existing buildings, unlike new construction, have many materials that are not recyclable (asbestos and soft materials with lead paint to name a few) that count in the waste stream but must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Buildings constructed as late as 1984 have lead and asbestos materials in them which represents a large portion of existing buildings. Recommend: Allowing additions or significant remodels to be included in LEED-EB if they follow LEED 2.0/2.1. By using weighted average new vs. existing, the certification score can be established. Revise credit to match recycling levels contained in LEED 2.0/2.1 providing two credits for construction waste stream recycling. Combine policy requirements for deconstruction of reusable products into the credit. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

On the issue of Construction Waste Management achievement scale and points:Since LEED EB addresses upgrades and ongoing operations of existing buildings the number of steps in the scale of achievement for Construction Waste Management and the number of points available were reduced from what is included in LEED NC. The appropriateness of the level that the achievement bar has been set at for this credit will be reviewed when the ballot draft of LEED EB is prepared based on information gathered in the LEED EB Pilot.

On the issue of hazardous materials: Hazardous materials are often not candidates for recycling and should be disposed of properly where recycling is not an option. In calculating the level of achievement for this credit, the hazardous materials that cannot appropriately be recycled should be deducted from the total waste, and this corrected total should be used in calculating the percent achievement for earning this credit.

95


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1Intent: Divert construction, demolition, and land clearing waste from landfill disposal and

redirect recyclable materials back to the manufacturing process. During significant additions or remodeling of existing buildings, many walls and surfaces are unusable and thus, large amounts of gypsum board are generated. Due to the sheer weight of gypsum board, we have found it extremely hard if not impossible to recycle and/or salvage 75% by weight of material waste. Credit 2 references three categories of waste: construction, demolition and land clearing. By combining these three categories of waste the load is lessened but still is unobtainable for significant additions or remodeling of existing buildings.

In addition, the state of Minnesota currently has no recycling outlets for either demolition or new gypsum board; as stated by the MN Office of Environmental Assistance. Also, our research has yet to uncover any environmentally safe recycling procedures for demolition gypsum. Based on our calculations this credit is unobtainable, even though every effort has been made to recycle and/or salvage waste. Source of Question: Karges-Faulconbridge – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

The LEED EB Pilot Participants, the LEED EB Committee, and the LEED EB Advisory group are all being asked to identify any known gypsum board recycling programs and known gypsum board recycling programs that process gypsum board that has been painted. The results of this survey will be distributed to LEED EB pilot participants when they are received.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1Some of the policy adoptions seem almost too stringent. Is there any room for negotiating

the percentage limits? For example, MR Credit 2 states that 75% by weight of construction waste is either recycled or salvaged. For minor renovation jobs, this seems a bit extreme. Based on previous history, Janssen does not feel they would be able to meet this requirement. There are other examples such as Certified Wood and Local/Regional materials. There may be jobs on site that cannot achieve these thresholds. Since this is still the pilot phase, can we submit ranges that Janssen feels is more acceptable/reasonable? What if the adopted policy states "where practical" so that Janssen will do whatever they can to meet the requirements while in extreme cases where, for one reason or another, the policy cannot be met? Please advise. Source of Question: Janssen Pharmaceutica via Johnson Controls Inc – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The specified requirements need to included in the policies and then the policies need to be followed for these points to be earned. After the pilot there will be adjustments to the level of some of these requirements. You can see the proposed direction of these changes in the Comment Draft of LEED-EB. Please note however that the proposed changes in the Comment Draft of LEED-EB will not go into effect until the public comments are addressed and the USGBC membership approves the final post pilot version of LEED-EB.

Materials and Resources, Credit 3: Resource Reuse

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1

96


Do you just have to specify the use of salvaged or refurbished materials or do you actually have to achieve the 10 percent usage? The reason to ask is not to avoid using salvaged or refurbished materials, but to recognize that meeting this goal may not always be achievable for every project conducted in the building. Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

To earn this credit the building owner/occupant needs to have the policy in place for specifying any construction in the building that salvaged or refurbished materials will be at least 10 percent of the materials used by cost. In addition, the building owner/occupant needs to document that salvaged or refurbished materials have in fact been at least 10 percent of the materials used by cost.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#2What are these percentage requirements based on? The document says it is “based on a

percentage of building materials used in the building or on site,” but is this based on weight, cost, new material, existing material? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The 10% Resource Reuse requirement is calculated on the basis of cost.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#3Does this credit include all of the existing material that will be reused in the building

including furniture, walls, etc.? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

No. This means when building materials are purchased for use, at least 10 percent are salvaged or refurbished materials. Continued use of the existing building is rewarded in LEED EB with points in categories: Materials and Resources, Credit 1 and in Sustainable Site, Credit 1.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#1This credit is inconsistent with LEED 2.0/2.1 because it requires only 10% verses LEED

2.0/2.1 5% (1 credit), and 10% (1 credit). Most LEED projects do not currently obtain the 5%. Raising the requirement will make this credit potentially impossible to obtain.

Recommend: Using same structure and targets as LEED 2.0/2.1. Incorporating policy todeconstruct and salvage reusable materials into construction waste credit. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

Since LEED EB addresses upgrades and ongoing operations of existing buildings the number of steps in the scale of achievement in Resource Reuse and the number of points available were reduced from what is included in LEED NC. The appropriateness of the level that the achievement bar has been set at for this credit will be reviewed when the ballot draft of LEED EB is prepared based on information gathered in the LEED EB Pilot.

97


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1The LEED-EB draft has retained these credits from LEED 2.0, but reduced the credits that

had more than one point available down to one point. Mike Arny explained that the EB Committee initially removed all these credits, but they were reinstated to retain greater consistency with the other LEED products. Since then, Mike has become convinced that they are important to retain, for these reasons:a) Building materials are purchased on an ongoing basis in the course of building operations and maintenance.b) These purchases are small individually, so premiums for green products are not an obstacle.c) Having green products specified in standing purchasing policies will drive the development of a supply chain to provide them.d) Even though the purchases are each small, they add up to a lot of stuff.

The TAG is concerned that even reduced to one-point for each credit (a total of five points for the five credits rather than eight as in LEED 2.x), these credits could provide a lot of points for very little real activity. Without a clearly defined scope for LEED-EB projects, it is difficult to assess this issue.

Recommendations: A report should be generated from the pilot projects documenting how these credits are implemented, what issues are encountered, and how much actual purchasing is involved with the achievement of any of the credits. The level of purchasing should be cross-tabulated with an indicator for the degree of renovation/construction in each project, so that purchasing levels in projects that are not undergoing renovations can be analyzed separately from those that are.

Based on this analysis, the status of these credits should be reviewed prior to preparation of the final checklist for ballot. One alternative approach that might be considered is a credit that offers one or two points for environmentally preferable purchasing policies that consolidate all these issues, and possibly others. Source of Question: Materials and Resources TAGResponse:

The requirement as written in the Pilot Draft of LEED EB is the requirement that applies to all buildings that register during the LEED EB pilot to participate in LEED EB. Once LEED EB is balloted by the USGBC members, the requirement approved in the ballot will apply to buildings that register to participate in LEED EB after it has be balloted.

Purchasing sustainable products for building improvements is an important part of operating a building in a sustainable way. Sustainable product purchasing results from (a) Having policies specifying the purchasing of these sustainable products and (b) following this policy when purchases of covered types of products are made. LEED EB encourages both steps to happen by requiring that the policies be in place and that that documentation be provided that when covered types of products were purchased during the performance period that these policies were followed.

Why purchasing of sustainable products by existing buildings is important:a) Building materials are purchased on an ongoing basis in the course of building operations and maintenance.b) These purchases are frequently small individually, so premiums for sustainable products will often not be an obstacle to the purchasing of sustainable products.c) Having green products specified in standing purchasing policies will drive the development of supply chains to provide them.d) Even though the purchases are each small, they add up to a lot of stuff.

98


As with all LEED credits and points, after several years of experience with these credits there may be experience that supports increasing or decreasing the points given for these sustainable purchasing policies.

Consistency in what is valued in LEED NC and LEED EB, where they address the same issues, is important because this reflects and communicates the USGBC’s best understanding of what is sustainable building design and performance. Consistency is also important from an administrative perspective because LEED EB, in addition to being the rating system for brining existing buildings into LEED, is also the re-rating system for buildings first certified under LEED NC.

If the LEED EB Committee and the MR TAG are unable to come to agreement this issue prior to the Ballot Draft of LEED EB being prepared, the LEED EB Committee will ask the LEED Steering Committee to resolve the issue of what to include in the Ballot Draft of LEED EB.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Presently, our firm is renting office space and has acquired office furnishings (cubicles,

tables, chairs, bookshelves, and computers). Our intent is to reuse as much office furnishings as possible in our new existing building, such as to limit environmental impacts. But other options are to throw away items or buy new equipment. It appears that LEED EB does offer any incentives/points to recycle/reuse existing furnishings.

Recommendation: Existing office furnishings can be considered a "resource reuse" and be applied to M&R Credit 3 and be applied to M&R Credit 5. Furnishing values would be determined by: original value, a sliding depreciation scale, market value.Source of Question: Karges-Faulconbridge – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

The reuse of office equipment can be included in the calculations for MR credit 3 under LEED EB, for the performance period that includes moving into the acquired space. Include documentation that an active choice was made to reuse rather that purchase new or purchase used from outside your organization. MR credit 5 does not apply unless you can show that the office equipment was manufactured with in the specified distance (500 miles).

Materials and Resources, Credit 4: Recycled Content

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – MR-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1What are these percentage requirements based on? The document says it is “based on a

percentage of building materials used in the building or on site,” but is this based on weight, cost, new material, existing material? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse-LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The 10% Recycled Content requirement is calculated on the basis of cost.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – MR-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#2Recommend: Using same structure and targets as LEED 2.0/2.1. Incorporating policy to

99


deconstruct and salvage reusable materials into construction waste credit. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

Since LEED EB addresses upgrades and ongoing operations of existing buildings the number of steps in the scale of achievement for Recycled Content and the number of points available were reduced from what is included in LEED NC. The appropriateness of the level that the achievement bar has been set at for this credit will be reviewed when the ballot draft of LEED EB is prepared based on information gathered in the LEED EB Pilot.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1Would it make sense to make bio based trash bags an alternative or a replacement for the

30% recycled content trash can liners standard in LEED EB? One example of a manufacturer of bio-based content trashcan liners is BIOgroupUSA, Inc. which makes trash can liners out of cornstarch. Source of Question: Fort Lewis - LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

Trash bags would be covered by LEED EB IEQ credit 5.5: Develop and maintain a low environmental impact house keeping disposable product policy. The LEED EB Committee has voted to modify the language included in the LEED EB pilot draft for this point to state the low environmental impact house keeping disposable product policy for the building needs to specify: “Use disposable janitorial paper products and trash bags that meet the minimum requirements of U.S. EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for the appropriate category.” The U.S. EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines address only recycling and do not address bio-based products. The merits of adding bio-based products to this credit will be investigated and responded to in a future group of LEED EB question responses.

Materials and Resources, Credit 5: Local/Regional Materials

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C5 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1How big is a region? In the central Florida area there is not a significant industry for

locally manufactured building products. If you expand the region to the entire state or Southeastern U.S., you might be able to meet this credits goal.Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

For earning this credit, the Region is defined as “within a radius of 500 miles around the site of the building.”

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C5 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#2What are these percentage requirements based on? The document says it is “based on a

percentage of building materials used in the building or on site,” but is this based on weight, cost, new material, existing material? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

100


The 10% Local and Regional Materials requirement is calculated on the basis of cost.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C5 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#3This credit is inconsistent with LEED 2.0/2.1 because it requires only 50% verses LEED

2.0/2.1 20% (1 credit), and 50% (1 credit). Recommend: Using same structure and targets as LEED 2.0/2.1. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse:

Since LEED EB addresses upgrades and ongoing operations of existing buildings the number of steps in the scale of achievement for Local and Regional Materials and the number of points available were reduced from what is included in LEED NC. The appropriateness of the level that the achievement bar has been set at for this credit will be reviewed when the ballot draft of LEED EB is prepared based on information gathered in the LEED EB Pilot.

Materials and Resources, Credit 6: Rapidly Renewable Materials

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C6 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1Is there a reference that describes what are rapidly renewable materials? Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

According to the LEED NC Reference Guide: “Rapidly renewable resources are those materials that substantially replenish themselves faster than traditional extraction demand (i.e. planted and harvested in less than a 10 year cycle) and do not result in significant biodiversity loss, increased erosion, air quality impacts, and that are sustainably managed.” Examples of such building materials that grow quickly and replenish their supply include, but are not limited to, bamboo flooring, wheatgrass cabinetry, sunflower seed board, Poplar OSB, wool carpet, linoleum flooring, cotton batt insulation. For additional information see the LEED New Construction Reference Guide.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Page 203 of the LEED NC Reference Guide states: "Specify rapidly renewable building

materials for 5% of the total building materials." Same section, on page 205 of the LEED NC Reference Guide, under Calculations, Table 2: "The cost for these materials are totaled and divided by the total material cost to obtain the rapidly renewable material percentage of 7%.” Is it 5% or 7% for Credit 6? Source of Question: Kansas City, City Hall - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The LEED EB Materials and Resource section, Credit 6, Rapidly Renewable Materials, requires that rapidly renewable building materials be specified for 5% or more of the total building materials used. The 7% is the result of an example calculation that shows that for this example the 5% requirement is exceeded.

101


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1What are these percentage requirements based on? The document says it is “based on a percentage of building materials used in the building or on site,” but is this based on weight, cost, new material, existing material? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse-LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: The 10% Rapidly Renewable Resources requirement is calculated on the basis of cost.

Materials and Resources, Credit 7: Certified Wood

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C7 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1Page 209 of the LEED NC Reference Guide states: "Use a minimum of 50% of wood-base

materials certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council Guidelines...." Page 211 of the LEED NC Reference Guide states under Design Approach Strategies: "Develop certified wood goals for your project. For instance, specify that 50% of all wood-based materials used in the project will be FSC-certified, based on dollar value." Page 212 of the LEED NC Reference Guide states under Calculations: "Sum all FSC-certified wood material cost and divide this value by the total wood products cost to obtain the certified wood products percentage (see Equation 1)." The equations calculate certified wood material portion percentage on a dollar basis. Is it a minimum 50% of total wood used must be certified or is it 50% of the total wood cost must be certified wood? Source of Question: Kansas City, City Hall - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

The LEED EB Materials and Resource, Credit 7, Certified Wood, requires that a minimum of 50% of total wood used must be certified and that this percentage is calculated based on the cost of the wood. So the answer to both questions is yes.

Materials and Resources, Credit 8: Occupant Recycling

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C8 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1One of the documentation requirements for this point is to provide hauler documentation to calculate the amount of waste recycled. Currently, the janitorial team removes waste and recycling from buildings on the Nike Campus and take it to a central hauling receptacle. Each individual building does not have a separate receptacle that is removed by the hauling company. Could we provide overall campus numbers from the haulers? Could we have our janitorial service gather this information?Source of Question: Nike – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

There are two options:(1) Providing waste hauler documentation for the whole campus and apply the resulting campus

wide achievement level to each building, or(2) Provide building specific information gathered by your janitorial service.

Question - LEED-EB PILOT – MR-C8 - Question Group 15 - Q#1):

102


We are planning a large recycle event for Earth Day this year at Denver Place. It includes the collection and eventual recycle of cell phones, computers and other E-scrap. Recycle America defines e- scrap that is typically reused and recycled as: PC monitors, CRTs, main frames, servers, storage disks, telephones, scanners, copiers, etc. I have two tenants who are replacing their main frames this month. The main frames will be going to other locations and will be reused. I can get documentation proving that. Please confirm that I can count e scrap such as mainframes in my recycle numbers. Source of Question: Lori Carter & Michael Haughey, Denver Place – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse - LEED-EB PILOT – MR-C8 - Question Group 15 - Q#1:Yes you can include recycled electronic equipment in the waste reduction calculations.The base line for waste reduction is the Baseline Total Waste Stream = Total waste leaving the building + Any waste reduction

achieved through source reduction actionsWaste reduction percentage = (Recycled waste + Amount of source reduction of waste)

Divided by (Baseline Total Waste Stream))

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – M&R-C2 thru 7 and IEQ-C3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1MR Credits 2 through 7, and IEQ Credit 3 essentially award points for creating a plan

regardless of implementation. What if a building is completely built-out? A project writes up a plan and as long as they haven’t constructed anything within last 12 months they didn’t actually ‘do’ anything building related. Even a building that has no wood or rapidly renewable materials in it or ever planned, can have a plan written and just not construct anything within 12 months. MR Credit 4, Low Emitting Materials is excluded, why? Logic not consistent between LEED categories. Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

Having a policy in place is beneficial because it covers incidental actions in the buildings and will result in a lot of purchasing of sustainable products over time. Annual documentation that these policies have been applied when the situations where it applied arose, keep the pressure on to carry out the implementation of the policies on an ongoing basis.

103


Section 5: Indoor Environmental Quality

Indoor Environmental Quality, Prerequisite 1: Minimum IAQ Performance

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1What’s the difference between ”SMACNA IAQ guidelines for HVAC system

maintenance” required for IEQ Prerequisite 1 and “SMACNA IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings under Construction” required for IEQ Credit 3? I have the second document, but where can I find the first document or is the USGBC referring to the same document? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse:

Where ”SMACNA IAQ guidelines for HVAC system maintenance” are referenced, use the other standard that is referenced as the “EPA IAQ Guidelines”. The document “SMACNA IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings Under Construction” can be ordered on line at: www.smacna.org.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2Requirement: "Maintain the existing building outside air ventilation introduction and

distribution system to allow the maximum capacity of outside air introduction into the building or 10 CFM/person, whichever is greater,..."Questions:

1. The verbiage in this prerequisite assumes that building has an outside air ventilation system. How is natural ventilation treated? Natural ventilation is often defined based on operable window area relative to floor area. Can natural ventilation qualify for this prerequisite? If so, what kind of documentation is required? (moved to group 11) Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

Based on LEED NC Credit Interpretation Response to Inquiry: 0408-EQp10-062102, for natural ventilation it must be demonstrated that the building ventilation meets ASHRAE Standard 62-1999 or ASHRAE Standard 62- 2001. This LEED NC CIR provides options for providing this demonstration:

To meet the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62, you must demonstrate that you are either providing the amount of fresh ventilation air specified in Table 2 of the standard, or that you have effectively controlled contaminant sources by the methods described in the standard. Although the standard implies that it is possible to achieve this result with natural ventilation, these results must be demonstrated.

The new version of ASHRAE Standard 62, release in 2001 also contains a calculation methodology for natural ventilation that may be simpler to use than other methods. For existing buildings with natural ventilation this is likely to be the most practical approach to addressing this prerequisite. The intent of this prerequisite is to meet the requirements of ASHRAE 62. This determination is not made based on a building owner’s satisfaction with apparent ventilation performance in similar facilities. The prerequisite would not be met without some basis for determining that the project meets the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62.

104

http://www.smacna.org/


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#3What does 'maximum capacity' mean? This term is unclear.

Source of Question: Abacus Engineered SystemsResponse:

Maximum capacity means the maximum airflow that is practical to achieve with the existing system in place in the building.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Prerequisite 2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P2 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1I have another question concerning ETS. This has caused concern in the two pilot projects

we have in Kansas City because of the number of smokers outside the entrances to the buildings and the fact that it is almost impossible to enter either of our pilot projects without smelling like you have been in a smoking lounge. It seems that with LEED concerned about light spilling off site and causing light pollution, type of vegetation used on a building site, where a building is located, etc. , that there is a strong emphasis on what is occurring outside a building.

I think the smoke gauntlet that is experienced as one enters a 'no-smoking' building is much more hazardous to a person's health than the mercury that is in the fluorescent fixture over an employee's desk. I know it is an apples to orange comparison but I can't let go of the EB mercury requirement. Seems that it should also be a 2.0 requirement.

Anyway, if I may add my two-cents. I would like to see a complete smoking ban for the entire building site if it is to be LEED certified. Knowing that it isn't going to happen, I would like to see a prescribed minimum distance from the perimeter of a building. Such as: 30' minimum distance from all building entrances and perimeter of building. I am in favor of a much more stringent smoking stance from LEED. If smokers can sue tobaccocompanies for their health problems it seems that a smoking lounge in a LEED EB Platinum building would be strange indeed and possibly expose the building owner or company to some of the same treatment that the tobacco companies have been receiving as of late. Source of Question: Richard WardResponse: The LEED EB Committee proposes to update the language included in the Draft Ballot Draft of LEED EB as follows: “Prohibiting smoking with in 25 feet of entries, air intakes or operable windows. Locating any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entries, air intakes and operable windows. Note: if entries are less that 25 feet from the end of the property associated with the building, prohibit smoking as far from the entries, air intakes and operable windows as is practical without going beyond the boundaries of the property associated with the building.”

Indoor Environmental Quality, Prerequisite 3: Asbestos Removal or Encapsulation

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1

105


Buildings built after the 1980’s are prevented by law from having asbestos products. For buildings built in 1990 or later, will a date of building construction suffice to meet this prerequisite? (Group 2)Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response:

Provide the date when law banning asbestos went in to effect, the date the building was built, and a statement that there is no asbestos in the building.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 5 - Q#2Moss Landing Marine Laboratories is located in a relatively new building (Constructed between 1998-2000). Would the USGBC consider an exemption for buildings constructed after a certain date? How have other Pilot Projects tackled this prerequisite? Source of Question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: See response above.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#3Before the CCI Center was renovated, a building survey was conducted to identify

contaminants including asbestos. The only asbestos that was found was in exterior roof flashing. Since this is on the exterior of the building it does not affect indoor air quality. Is further documentation necessary?Source of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:

The presence of the asbestos needs to be noted and it needs to be documented that the appropriate treatment of any asbestos has been implemented.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#4The LEED EB Reference list does not state a reference for the asbestos audit itself, which

will hopefully lead to the required statement by the CIH that the building does not contain asbestos. Please note that a CIH will NOT be able to state unequivocally that the building does not contain any asbestos, but will state the results of the survey, and at best state 'that based on the survey no asbestos containing materials were found.'

The 29 CFR document, section 1926.1101(k)(5)(ii)(A) references completing an inspection pursuant to requirements of AHERA 40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E, attached. Within 40 CFR Part 763, refer to sections 763.85 and 763.86 for inspection and sampling requirements. If the asbestos survey meets these requirements and finds no asbestos, would that satisfy the EQ prerequisite requirements? One more clarification on EQ pr 3: is this only for interior materials, since it is in category Indoor Environmental Quality? We’re trying to assess whether roofing materials will need to be sampled? Source of Question: Paladino and CompanyResponse: A statement from the CIH that an appropriate survey to identify asbestos containing materials was carried out and that, based on the survey, no asbestos containing materials were found would be adequate to meet this prerequisite. The survey to identify asbestos containing materials needs to address both the interior and exterior of the building.

106


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#5According to a 1993 environmental report on our building, no asbestos was found inside the building. The inspection did find 3-5% chrysotile asbestos on exterior roof flashingon the northwest & northeast corners of the building, above the storage area. In 1995 a roofing contractor added insulation and rubber roofing on top of the existing roof. Although this exterior asbestos posed negligible risk to building occupants, the new roof effectively abated the asbestos by enclosing the roof flashing. Our building meets the intent of LEED EB Prerequisite 3 for Asbestos Removal or Encapsulation. Source of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: This would appear to meet the requirements for this prerequisite which are to document the absence, removal or encapsulation of any asbestos present in the interior or exterior of the building.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Prerequisite 3: Asbestos Removal or Encapsulation

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:Under "Prerequisite 3: Asbestos Removal or Encapsulation" -- "Requirements" the second sentence "Remove any potentially friable asbestos materials that are located in ventilation distribution plenums or chases in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926." This is vague wording, and is not a regulatory requirement as far as I know, nor best practice. The problem with this is, who is deciding what "potentially friable" is. Where I have seen potentially friable used in regulations is NESHAP. Which discusses non-friable asbestos containing materials that can become friable during demolition and renovation?

The campus has friable and potentially friable asbestos (NESHAP definition) in plenums and chases. It appears that the removal of asbestos is being mandated by this LEED requirement. It is generally understood that removing asbestos just to remove asbestos leads to greater exposure to building occupants, not less. The industry standard and best practice is if it is in good shape then maintain it and remove as part of a renovation and/or demolition projects, and this is how we approach it on campus.

In the "Documentation Requirements" section it requests documentation that documents "all" and "any", and it has been my professional experience that these are red flag words not to be used in documents. The first two document options request that either we document that "all asbestos that exists or existed in the building in compliance EPA's asbestos removal, [etc.]" or "that the treatment of any asbestos complied with EPA's asbestos removal, [etc.]" do not believe this would be possible, because when these buildings were built and for many years afterwards the referenced standards did not exist.Source of Question: UC Santa Barbara – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-P3 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1

For any building type, following the standards of AHERA (the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act) which was passed by Congress in 1986 for schools is an acceptable way to meet the requirements for IEQ Prerequisite 3. AHERA requires public school districts and non-profit

107


private schools to inspect their schools for asbestos containing building material and prepare management plans which recommend the best way to reduce the hazard from any asbestos that may be present. Options include repairing damaged asbestos containing material, spraying it with sealants, enclosing it, removing it, or keeping it in good condition so that it does not release fibers. The plans must be developed by accredited management planners and approved by the State. The school authority must notify parent, teacher and employer organizations of the plans, and then the plans must be implemented. The school district must also perform periodic surveillance of asbestos containing material every 6 months in its schools. AHERA also requires accreditation of abatement designers, contractor supervisors and workers, building inspectors, and school management plan writers.

An asbestos management plan is required to provide documentation of the recommended asbestos response actions, the location of asbestos within the school, and any action taken to repair or remove the material. The school authority must maintain records to be included in the Asbestos Management Plan. These records include among other things:

List of the name and address of each school building and whether the building has asbestos containing building material, and what type of asbestos-containing material.

Date of the original school inspection

The plan for re-inspections.

A blueprint that clearly identifies the location of asbestos-containing building material that remains in the school.

A description of any response action or preventive measures taken to reduce asbestos exposure.

A copy of the analysis of any building material, and the name and address of any laboratory that sampled the material

The name, address, and telephone number of the “designated person” to ensure the duties of the local education agency (LEA) are carried out

A description of steps taken to inform workers, teachers, and students or their legal guardians about inspections, re-inspections, response actions, and periodic surveillance.

108


The asbestos management plan must be updated with information collected during periodic surveillance every 6 months, re-inspections every 3 years, and every time a response action is taken within the school. Also, records of annual notifications to parents, teachers, and staff concerning the availability of the school’s asbestos management plan must be included within the asbestos management plan files.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 1: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Monitoring

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:The General Dynamics Facility in Scottsdale, Arizona consists of two buildings with a mix of office, manufacturing, and labs that totals 1.5 million square feet. There are nearly 330 air handlers installed at this Facility. There is currently a permanent outside air CO2 monitoring station and some additional monitors spread out through the two buildings. Currently these sensors are installed either in the return air or in the rooms of the areas we monitor. All of these sensors are tied into our building controls system and modulate the outside air dampers based on the CO2 levels.

Spot monitoring has been conducted in many locations throughout the Facility over the past three years and in each case, the delta between outdoor and indoor CO2 measurements has never exceeded 100 ppm. It would be extremely expensive, and, from our experience, unnecessary to install CO2 monitors at all of the air handlers located throughout the facility.

We propose a 5 year plan to install a minimum of 5 additional monitors a year through out the campus targeting areas of high density. These areas will include dining areas, conference rooms and office areas. This CO2 monitoring expansion will provide General Dynamics with an additional 25 permanently monitored areas at the end of 5 years.

In addition to these permanent CO2monitoring stations, the Facility's in-house Industrial Hygienist will proactively monitor 2 additional areas a month for CO2 with portable equipment for this same time period.This will help develop a profile of the Facility and help to target areas for the installation of the permanent monitors. With these actions and the necessary drawings and documents we believe the plan has met the intent of the credit without creating a burden on the budget.Source of Question: General Dynamics Scottsdale Facility – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1To earn IEQ Credit 1 the CO2 levels must be monitored in at least 5% of the occupied spaces. This level of monitoring can be achieved incrementally as long as the CO2 levels are initially monitored in at least 1% of the occupied spaces, there is a plan in place raise the CO2 monitoring to at least 5% of the occupied spaces with in 5 years, and regular progress is made in implementing this plan.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#2:IEQc1 - Carbon Dioxide Monitoring.We have a two story building which has uses a source water loop to reject or store water for heating and cooling. The building has a dedicated mechanical/plenum room which houses a single

109


common return air fan. The outdoor air duct is connected to the inlet duct of this return fan and is currently controlled by time of day events. In the mechanical/plenum room is an assortment of unitary water to air heat pumps which take air from the mechanical/plenum room space and discharge to their dedicated spaces. Would using various location space sensors which modulate the outdoor air damper to react to space conditions suffice the requirements of this credit ? There are larger open office spaces, meeting rooms and individual offices in eachbuilding. If a single space were out of range the dampers would open and the entire building would receive more outside air. Source of Question: Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C1 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#2This credit does not require a specific control strategy as long as the requirements for IEQ Credit 1 are met. These requirements are: “Install/maintain a permanent carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring system that provides feedback on space ventilation performance in a form that affords operational adjustments, AND maintain indoor carbon dioxide levels no higher than outdoor levels by more than 530 parts per million at any time.”

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 2: Increase Ventilation EffectivenessQuestions: None. (Groups 1-16)

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 3: Construction IAQ Management Plan

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1My assumption is that these procedures would only apply to projects of a significant enough magnitude to warrant these measures? Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: This credit requires: (1) That a construction IAQ management plan policy be in place that specifies inclusion of Construction IAQ Management specification provisions for any construction projects that may occur in the building, and (2) That documentation be provided that this policy was followed over the last year.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#2Can the process described below be used to meet the requirement that the building be flushed out for 2 weeks?

Proposed Approach:

1) Any supply ductwork that has not had air flowing through it during construction is protected by the following measures:

a. Open ends are sealed with covers.

b. Air Handler Units are installed with the pre-filters and final filters in place.

110


c. Fabricated rectangular ductwork is shipped to the site in plastic wrap, which is only removed at the time of installation.

2) Supply ductwork which has been used for temporary heating or cooling of the site has necessarily had the end covers removed, but the AHU’s have only been run with the construction set of filters in place. The construction set of filters consist of 30% (MERV 6) pre-filters and 85% (MERV 13) filters at the first section in the AHU in direction of airflow.

3) With the above measures in place (in accordance with SMACNA’s “IAQ Guidelines for Occupied Buildings Under Construction”), as required by LEED to earn this credit, it is very unlikely that large accumulations of dirt will be present in the ductwork.

4) The test and balance procedures in each area are performed near the end of the construction cycle. The Air handler Units are operating (and therefore the ducts and the space are being flushed) continuously for a minimum of 2 weeks before the area is turned over to the tenant and for several weeks before that for the purpose of temporary heating and cooling. The system is left in operating condition from that point on, so the total flushing period is for many weeks more than the 2 week minimum period requested for the LEED credit.

5) Low VOC paints, sealants and materials are specified for all construction so there is very little VOC to flush out of the space.

Source of question: Pentagon Renovation, Wedge 2 – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response: If the painting and finishing of the interior spaces are completed prior to the Test and Balance work being done, this approach would meet the requirement as long as it can be documented that the flush out mode of operation during the test and balance work continued for at least 2 weeks. If the painting and finishing of the interior spaces are not completed prior to the Test and Balance work being done, this approach may still meet the requirement as long as it can be documented that the materials and paints used after the Test and Balance procedures began contained no VOCs.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C3 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1The reference guide discusses exploring alternate paths to flushing out the building after a tenant finish project. We are curious if any alternate paths have been identified and approved. We are a high rise building with a central system. Our concern is the energy required to do a flush out. If the job is only 1,500 square feet or maybe only 6,000 s.f., flushing out an entire tower would expend a lot of energy. A few of those a year would cost us our Energy Star Label. So we are looking for alternatives. Another possibility discussed in the reference guide is some special testing equipment developed by the EPA. The information only notes an "EPA Case Study". Could you provide more information on a number or reference for the case study? We are interested in researching that too. Source of Question: Amerimar Realty – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C3 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1The alternative to the Flush out is Ambient Air Quality Testing. At construction completion, the contractor is required to test at 16 locations throughout the occupied spaces of the building to

111


measure indoor contaminant levels of CO, CO2, airborne mold and mildew, formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, 4PC, total particulates, and other regulated pollutants. Contaminants must be below established concentration standards prior to acceptance.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ –C3 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#2IEQ Credit 3-Constructon IAQ Management. Are the SMACNA guidelines (HVAC protection, scheduling, housekeeping, etc) absolutely necessary on each and every construction/renovation job, no matter how large or small? Can the policy read "where applicable"? Also, for building flush-out, must Janssen or the contractor always conduct a 2-week building flush-out, regardless of the size of the project? Can the policy read "where applicable, a 2-week building flush-out will be performed prior to occupancy"? Source of Question: Janssen Pharmaceutica via Johnson Controls Inc – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C3 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#2See Response (IEQ-C3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#3) above (Check number of Q being referenced).

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 4: Low-Emitting Materials

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1It seems that this credit would be appropriate to include in LEED EB. Could it be added back into LEED EB? Source of Question: Many LEED EB Pilot ProjectsResponse: During the LEED EB Pilot, an innovation credit can be earned by meeting the requirements below. A Low-Emitting Materials credit, with these requirements, will be included in the IEQ section of the initial ballot draft of LEED EB as listed below.

Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 4: Low-Emitting Materials

IntentReduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous or potentially irritating to provide installer and occupant health and comfort.

RequirementsEstablish a policy for your organization that the VOC limits listed below will be met or exceeded for all adhesives, sealants, paints, composite wood products, and carpets purchased or acquired. Document all purchases of such products on an ongoing basis and document that the products purchased meet or exceed these standards.

Adhesives must meet or exceed the VOC limits of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule # 1168, AND all sealants used as filler must meet or exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District Reg. 8, Rule 51.

112


Paints and Coatings must meet or exceed the VOC and chemical component limits of Green Seal requirements.

Carpet systems must meet or exceed the Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label Indoor Air Quality test Program.Composite wood and agrifiber products must contain no added urea-formaldehyde resins.

TECHNOLOGIES/STRATEGIES:Specify low emitting materials.

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS: Low Emitting Materials

Provide a copy of the Low Emitting Materials policy that specifies inclusion of Low Emitting Materials specifications for any construction materials used in the building on the site.

Provide documentation that the Low Emitting Materials policy has been followed:

For any construction projects that have occurred in the building over the last year provide calculations showing that the Low Emitting Materials requirement was met. OR

Provide a written statement that no construction materials used in the building or on the site during the last year.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#2Since VOC credits can be obtained for LEED EB Innovation and Design, can our project obtain 5 I&D credits: 1 credit for a good public transportation plan with free public transportation for employees, and 4 credits for low VOC content materials? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse-LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: No, there are only 4 innovation credits and the low VOC content materials can provide 1 of the innovation credits. This treatment of the low VOC content materials is consistent with the treatment of the other materials credits in LEED EB, where having a materials policy in place and following that policy fewer points are earned in LEED EB than in LEED for New Construction. How low VOC content materials are included in the LEED EB Pilot is included above.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C4 - QUESTION GROUP 8 - Q#3Existing buildings are constantly being painted, having sealants applied, replacing carpets, changing cabinetry, etc. The intent of this credit in LEED 2.0/2.1 is to lower the VOC associated with these activities and improve indoor air quality as these events occur.Recommend: Following LEED 2.0/2.1 example and implement into LEED-EB. Source of Question: Commissioning and Green Building ServicesResponse: See response to Question: LEED EB-Pilot IEQ-C4 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1. (Check number of Q being referenced)

113


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C4 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#4I was looking at LEED-EB and noticed that the IEQ points for Low-Emitting Materials was not included. This does not make sense to me because there is no reason why someone would necessarily use LEED-CI if all they were going to do was paint or re-carpet.Source of Question: Sieben Energy AssociatesResponse: See response to LEED EB-Pilot: IEQ-C4 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1(Check number of Q being referenced).

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5: Green Housekeeping

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.1: Entryway Systems to Prevent Particles from Entering.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 2 - Q#1In discussions for the LEED Application Guide for Retail, it was determined that entryways alone did not qualify a retail project for 1 point (under v 2.1 & CI), yet LEED EB awards a point for just that. (Level of effort not consistent between horizontal products.) Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response: Earning this credit includes both having the entryway feature in place and maintaining them over time. This credit was part of the LEED EB Pilot draft approved by the LEED Steering Committee.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#2The CCI Center utilizes a weekly service which replaces and cleans entry doormats for the building. This credit states that entryways must have "installed permanent entryway systems... [and they must be] effectively maintained on a regular basis". Does this system qualify for this point as it serves the intent of reducing transported contaminants from shoes at the entryway? Source of Question: CCI Center – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: The ongoing use of entry door mats that are of the appropriate size and type for the climatic conditions and the geographical area and that are regularly cleaned at appropriate intervals and replaced as necessary qualifies as "installed permanent entryway systems” so if the case is made that the entry door mats are in place on an ongoing basis and that these mats are being cleaned at appropriate intervals based on the level of use, the actions described would earn this credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#3I would like for the Steering Committee to consider changing the word "housekeeping" to "cleaning". Thus these credits would be "Green Cleaning"My rationale is as follows. First, "housekeeping" is a term typically associated with residential maid services and cleaning in the lodging industry. Housekeeping is typically not used for other

114


industry segments such as commercial & institutional buildings, schools, health care, etc. Secondly, a specific manufacturer has trademarked the term"Green Housekeeping.” Thus, I believe that the more generic term "Green Cleaning" would be appropriate going forward. Source of Comment: Steve Ashkin – LEED EB CommitteeResponse: This change will be incorporated into the Draft LEED EB Reference guide and into the Ballot draft of LEED EB.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#4As per LEED EB-Pilot: IEQ-C5.1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2 (Check number of Q being referenced): "The ongoing use of entry door mats that are of the appropriate size and type for the climatic conditions and the geographical area and that are regularly cleaned at appropriate intervals and replaced as necessary qualifies as "installed permanent entryway systems." So, if the case is made that the entry door mats are in place on an ongoing basis and that these mats are being cleaned at appropriate intervals based on the level of use, the actions described would earn this credit."

The natural question is, "Where do we get this type of information?" What do "appropriate size", "appropriate type" and "appropriate intervals" mean? Who defines those? How does one determine if our system is appropriate? Source of Question: Several InquiriesResponse: Initially applicants will be asked to provide explanations of why they believe their mats are of appropriate size and type for the climatic conditions and the geographical area and are being cleaned at appropriate intervals. In the future as information is gathered from participants, more guidance may be given on what is appropriate.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.2: Isolate Water and Chemical Concentrate Mixing Areas

Question - LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C5.2 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1:IEQ Credit 5.2-Green Housekeeping, Chemical Mixing Isolation. If the Housekeeping Contractor that Janssen utilizes does not use concentrated cleaning chemicals, thus there is no need for an isolated area to mix chemicals, can Janssen receive a point for this credit? Source of Question: Janssen Pharmaceutica via Johnson Controls Inc – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C5.2 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1: No, to earn this credit there must be an isolated and separately ventilated cleaning closet.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.3: Isolate High Volume Copying/Print Rooms/Fax Stations

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – C5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1

115


Do the fax stations identified mean large fax equipment or small desk top fax machines located in numerous offices throughout office buildings? Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: LEED EB recommends isolation of occupant activities associated with chemical use and rewards buildings that do so through building design and operation. If the building provides isolation of high volume copying and printing equipment by providing and maintaining a separated, and exhausted space for this equipment, it can earn this point. Building owners do not need to eliminate the use of convenience copiers and printers distributed through the building to earn this point (based on LEED NC Credit Interpretation No. 0064-Eqc50-092801).

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.3 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#2What is a high volume copy/fax/printing station? Response: The LEED EB Committee has proposed to the IEQ TAG that the a high volume copy/fax/printing station be defined for LEED as follows:“A high volume copy/fax/printing station is one where more than 50,000 pages are copied or faxed or printed per month.” Once the LEED EB Committee gets feed back on this issue from the IEQ TAG a definition of high volume copy/fax/printing stations will be finalized.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.4: Low Impact Environmental Cleaning Fluid and House Keeping Policy

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#1Question on Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.4: Low Impact Environmental Cleaning Fluid and House Keeping Policy: Attached is the credit revision that I discussed with you. The issue has to do with a seemingly subtle change in the second bullet point, relative to the standard for cleaning products. In the current document, it states that products can meet Green Seal's Standard OR the Cal Code of Regulations. This allows suppliers to choose which is easiest. The intent as clarified by the revision is to make the first pass the Green Seal Standard which is much more comprehensive then just air emissions (VOCs), and for those categories NOT covered by the Green Seal Standard to as a minimum meet the Cal requirements. Without getting into to much detail, this is an incredibly important change. Please let me know if you'd like further details. Source of Question: The Ashkin GroupResponse: The response is located at the end of the comments and discussion of comments.

Comments on Proposed Response:

1. The Committee must recognize that the proposed revision is significant and amounts to the endorsement of Green Seal GS-37 as THE national standard for covered categories of housekeeping chemicals, to the exclusion of alternate standards or approaches. The Committee should carefully review all developing national standards for eco-labelling, and determine if mandating Green Seal certification is THE standard that should be used. Has a review of various other standards been completed by the writers? In general, we find that Green Seal is gaining the most recognition on a national level, and is a very comprehensive evaluation process. We support its use, but would like to know what other benchmarks were considered.

116


2. Product categories covered by Green Seal will be held to multi-attribute health, safety and environmental criteria. Those product categories not included in the Green Seal standard will be held to a much lower standard, namely CARB low-VOC. Merely meeting low-VOC as the only criteria is a shallow approach. This wide difference in criteria will be a large inconsistency in the standard. Wider consideration of HSE criteria should be used for product categories not covered by Green Seal, since some of these products can potentially have a greater impact than covered product categories.

It is recommended that the Committee consider a revision as such: "Products not covered by Green Seal or not passing national-level eco-labeling standards may still present extremely important advantages to safety and the environment that exist in terms of their overall life cycle and sustainability. Life Cycle Analysis or Health/Environmental Risk Assessment can be used to detemine acceptability, when a given product does not pass or is not included in the base criteria."

3. Since the intent of this credit is to limit exposure of workers and occupants to potentially hazardous chemicals, the Committee should endorse a policy which requires full disclosure of ingredients on product labels and Material Safety Data Sheets, as well as training programs on hazards and proper use of housekeeping chemicals for workers.Source of Comments on Proposed Response: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pliot Participant

Discussion of Comments on Proposed Response:Comment 1: Yes, this is a significant and important change. The Green Seal standards for cleaning products are the most widely accepted environmental standard for the cleaning products they cover. Green Seal provides a comprehensive approach that includes multi-attribute health, safety and environmental criteria. As such, Green Seal provides an appropriately robust sustainability standard for cleaning products that addresses the USGBC’s environmental and sustainability goals. The exploration of approaches to setting standards for cleaning products included consideration of approaches used by: Massachussetts, Vermont, Minnesota, Santa Monica-CA, and King County-WA.

Comment 2: For the products types not covered by Green Seal Standards requiring that the CARB low-VOC does provide a minimum standard. Suggestions for additional standards that that could expand the requirements for product types not covered by Green Seal Standards are invited. As additional other national sustainability standards are for cleaning products by are developed by Green Seal or other organizations these can be evaluated by the USGBC as possible additions to the referenced standards in the LEED EB rating system. LCAs are becoming an important tool for comparing products but do not yet set specific standards for achievement. The use of LCAs to compare cleaning products is encouraged by the suggested innovation credits on this topic that is included in the pilot draft of LEED EB.

Comment 3:This suggestion has been added to the propose response to this question.

117


Response: For IEQ Credit 5.4: Low Impact Environmental Cleaning Fluid and House Keeping Policy, in the updated version of LEED EB that is prepared for balloting by the USGBC members, this credit will be changed to read: "Products must meet the Green Seal Standards for all categories of products covered by the Green Seal Standards. For product categories not covered by Green Seal Standards, products must meet any applicable California Code of Regulations for low VOC cleaning products. In addition to meeting these standards, to earn this point the building owner shall have in place a policy requiring all suppliers of cleaning products used in the building to provide full disclosure of ingredients. If possible, this full disclosure of ingredients should be included on the Material Safety Data Sheets. If the above disclosure requirement is not met on the MSDS, then disclosure must be provided through other means that are easily accessible to health and safety personnel to earn this point. The over time the intention is that this credit will move toward requiring that this full disclosure of ingredients be included on the Material Safety Data Sheets. For this credit "Full Disclosure" means disclosure of all ingredients that make up 0.1% or more of the product, and disclosure of the concentration ranges for each of the disclosed ingredients. The intent of the above disclosure requirement is to have a chemical disclosure policy that is responsive to the needs of both the housekeeping management and maintenance personnel, as well as health and safety personnel. Additionally, suppliers must provide training and educational materials on the hazards and safe and effective proper use of housekeeping chemicals for workers."

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.4 -QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#2 What are the criteria for ‘sustainable’ cleaning and hard-flooring coating systems products? ‘Sustainable’ is of course a term that encompasses much more than the concept of minimizing exposure of personnel to potentially hazardous chemicals. If we use this term here we must incorporate concepts of total cost of performance, safety in use and application, recyclable packaging, etc. For instance, a ‘green’ floor care system may offer no hazardous chemical exposures during application, but in use the floor may become slippery and hazardous to occupants, and a significant risk to building owners/managers. Similarly, the ‘greenest’ cleaning fluid is most likely pure water, but its lack of disinfectant properties would make its applicability to bathroom care in any building ineffective. These ‘green’ systems would be unsustainable in the eyes of any facility manager who is responsible for balancing all factors in the delivery of an effective high-performance building to his/her occupants.

It is recommended that the concept of sustainability be further defined to be effectively used in this standard.Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: The LEED EB Committee will continue to work on expanding the definition of sustainable cleaning and hard-flooring coating systems products.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#3What are the dispensing requirements of ‘concentrated mixing products’?Use of chemical concentrates has several positive environmental benefits:

1. Significantly lower transportation costs between manufacturer and end-user.2. Significantly lower use of packaging materials.3. Lower real chemical use to obtain same performance.

118


4. Potentially lower exposure of maintenance personnel to hazardous chemicals.The exposure to hazardous chemicals is minimized only by using closed dispensing systems. Concentrates sold for manual dilution in buckets or bottles can actually increase the risk of employee exposure. Recommend that this credit requirement be modified to include “Utilization of concentrated cleaning products dispensed from closed systems.” Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: In the Ballot draft of LEED EB this credit requirement will be modified to include “Utilization of concentrated cleaning products dispensed from closed systems.”

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#4 Our only concern for credit 5.4 comes under the headline of ' Green Seal standards.’ Does Green Seal put out a list of acceptable standards or does the bottle of liquid, or whatever, have 'Green Seal' label on it and is that sufficient?Previously the credit had mentioned 'life cycle analysis.' With this attached rewrite does that still apply and how will USGBC cover this analysis? With a template?Source of Question: Moss Landing Marine LaboratoryResponse: Yes, lists of products that have received Green Seal certification are available for Green Seal. It is also acceptable to receive documentation from a product provider that their products meet the Green Seal Standards, i.e. the products need to meet the Green Seal standards but they do not need to be certified by Green Seal.

Using ‘life cycle assessment’ to evaluate which cleaning products to use is a recommended way to earn an innovation point in LEED EB. Eventually “LCA” analysis will probably become an important factor in the standards the USGBC references in LEED EB for cleaning products, but this is still at least several years in the future.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#5Cleaning, I was writing our policy for the IEQ credit- 5 for Green Housekeeping, and I was

wondering if I need to write a policy for the Cleaning Fluid Policy and the Disposable paper Products Policy. It appears that since they are 2 separate points, they would need to be 2 policies? Currently I have combined the 2 into one policy, but wanted to verify that for credit I would need to document them separately. Source of Question: Kirksey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:Addressing both of these topics, as well as other green cleaning topics, in an integrated green cleaning policy is both acceptable and preferable.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 13 - Q#6Is carpet cleaning being covered by IEQ credit 5: Green Housekeeping? After reading

through one of the credit's criteria, Green Seal Standard 37: Industrial and Institutional Cleaners, it appears that it only really addresses hard surface cleaning products. If carpet cleaning is included in this credit or somewhere else in LEED EB, how will carpet cleaning or carpet cleaning services be judged/evaluated? Source of Question: Kristian Bodek, The Moderns

119


Response: Carpet cleaning is included in LEED EB IEQ Credit 5.4. Low environmental impact

carpet cleaning is included in the low environmental impact cleaning policy and cleaning product purchasing for the building. Specific standards for low environmental impact carpet cleaning policy and cleaning product purchasing have not yet been set by the LEED EB Committee.

Question - LEED-EB PILOT - QUESTIONS GROUP 14-IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1

Knoll's housekeeping contractor has been unable to find a wax, wax stripper and rug cleaners to meet the GS-37 standard. I received the latest update to LEED-EB and noted that there are no GS-37 standards rug cleaners.

Can we use "The Pennsylvania Green Building Operations and Maintenance Manual" as a replacement? Here is the link to the complete guidelines: http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/green_bldg/greenbuildingbook.pdf

I have copied the sections that are pertinent to floor finishes, stripping and rug cleaning.6. FLOOR FINISHESFloor Finishes must be durable and appropriate for the prescribed maintenance method, but they typical contain heavy metals. Importantly, floor finishes must be compatible with the stripping solution. The following are some of the specific issues to compare for this product category:Durability: Prefer finishes that are more durable (require less maintenance such as buffing, restoring and recoating) then less durable finishes that require more frequent maintenance.Heavy Metals: Prefer non-metal cross-linked polymers as compared to those containing heavy metals. Another significant benefit of non-metal polymer formulas is that frequently they can be removed with less hazardous floor strippers.More Preferable Ingredients: metal-free polymers.Less Preferable Ingredients: metal-crosslinked polymers.

7. FLOOR STRIPPERSFloor Strippers typically have extreme pH, solvents and ammoniated compounds necessary to remove metal cross-linked floor finishes. Floor strippers must be compatible with the floor finish. The following are some of the specific issues to compare for this product category:pH: Prefer those with a pH closer to neutral (in the range of 10 to 12) as compared to those with extreme pH (closer to 14).VOC: Prefer those that have no or low VOC as compared to alternatives with higher levels.Bio-Based / Renewable Resources: Prefer those that containing naturally derived solvents as compared to those containing non renewable derived solvents.More Preferable Ingredients: d-Limonene (citrus solvent) and methyl esters.Less Preferable Ingredients: ethylene glycol mono butyl ether (butyl cellusolve), 2-butoxyethanol, ammonia, and sodium hydroxide.

4. CARPET CLEANERSee All Purpose Cleaners. In addition, select carpet cleaners that when dry are not sticky or tacky. This minimizes resoiling and extends the time between cleaning.

1. ALL PURPOSE CLEANERS

120


All Purpose Cleaners consist of a broad array of possible formulations. The following are some of the specific issues to compare for this product category:pH: Prefer those with a neutral pH (closer to 7) as compared to those with extreme pH (closer to 1 or 14)Biodegradability: Prefer those that are readily biodegradable as compared to those that are slower to degrade. Unfortunately, many older formulations use excellent performing ingredients that have been found to have serious environmental and health concerns (see ingredients to avoid).Dyes & Fragrances: Prefer those with no or low levels of dyes and fragrances compared to those products that are heavily dyed or fragranced. If dyes are necessary use those that are approved for foods and cosmetics (F&C).VOCs: Prefer those that have no or low VOC as compared to alternatives with higher levels. Consider detergent based products compared to those containing solvents. More Preferable Ingredients: surfactants containing terms such as lauryl, amides, and glycosides.Less Preferable Ingredients: Nonyl Phenol Ethoxylates, NTA, EDTA, glycol ethers, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium metasilicate, phosphates. Source of Question: Knoll, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 14 - Q#1The "The Pennsylvania Green Building Operations and Maintenance Manual" provides useful guidance, but the specific requirements of LEED-EB also need to be met. IEQ Credit 5.4 requires that cleaning chemicals for which there is no Green Seal Standard must minimally meet VOC standards as set by CARB. The Pennsylvania guidelines are not specific to this point, so the VOC content and compliance must be separately documented to meet the requirements of LEED-EB. As with all LEED-EB points and prerequisites it is important the building owners also be cognizant of and meet any applicable federal, state or local government requirements.

Question - LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C5.2 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#2For the following questions, please consider that the building Owner in question obtained an older structure in SF, renovated and restored the building, and began to lease up in the past 8 months. There are a handful of tenants that stayed in the building during this transition and maintained continuous, uninterrupted occupancy.

3) Indoor Air Quality - Credit 5 Green Housekeeping, Is there anything more specific with regard to the following: Sustainable Cleaning and hard floor coating systems products Low environmental impact integrated indoor pest management policyBasically my team is trying to assure that they meet the intent of these four credits before they commit to a new cleaning supply / maintenance company. Source of Question: The Pankow Companies - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C5.2 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#2See question and response above (Question - (LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1)) and see the LEED-EB Pilot Reference Guide which includes the following information:

IEQ-Credit 5.4, Section 7: Strategies

121


There are multiple strategies that may be considered to achieve sustainable cleaning and hard flooring coating systems. The Facility Manager must first assess the areas and substrates to be maintained, the facility usage patterns, and overall goals of the cleaning program. Suppliers of cleaning products and services can then be engaged to develop a comprehensive approach to the maintenance of the facility and specification of products and labor components to be used, as well as the organization’s Low Impact Cleaning Policy. Finally, these specifications and Policy should be used to educate in-house cleaning staffs and when planning and preparing RFPs to identify and contract with outside service and/or product providers.

Usage of cleaning chemicals may be reduced by using more efficient or labor-intensive cleaning strategies, increasing the ‘life’ of a floor finish, and by using concentrated products with appropriate dilution controls.

Development of cleaning strategies should focus on efficient use of chemicals and supplies, meet the hygiene and appearance goals of the cleaning program, and protect building occupants, systems and finishes from contaminants that adversely affect their performance. More frequent and intensive cleaning should be directed towards building entryways, bathrooms, and food preparation and consumption areas. It may be more effective to clean more often than use stronger chemicals. The development of cleaning specifications that include frequency of operations should be undertaken with the assistance of the in-house Facility Manager or a cleaning service provider.

To increase the “life” of the floor finish, which in turn reduces the frequency of stripping and re-coating, several strategies can be used. To begin, it is necessary to analyze the substrate and the expected traffic pattern of the floor under consideration. This must then be matched to a floor finish product and maintenance system that will produce the required appearance and at the same time minimize the maintenance and prolong the useful life prior to stripping. It may be necessary to establish an initial base of floor finish thick enough to be able to be maintained (buffed, burnished, scrubbed, etc.) and last for a minimum of one year. Depending on the durability of the floor finish and the percentage of solids, it may require an initial base of six (6) to twelve (12) coats

Once the base coat is applied a strategy of finish protection should be employed. In this regard, grit and fine particles, which act as an abrasive to damage the floor coating, should be addressed by utilizing high quality entryway matting systems, frequently dust mopping or vacuuming hard floors, and damp mopping. It should be noted that vacuuming of hard floors is an acceptable strategy for removing grit and other abrasive materials. Additionally, a thorough interim floor maintenance program should be implemented, which may include, auto scrubbing, deep scrubbing and top coating the floor.

Reduced environmental impact is assured by specifying cleaning fluids used for general or all-purpose cleaning, glass and bathroom cleaners that meet the criteria of Green Seal Standard GS-37. It is important to note that this does not require products to be “Certified” if cleaning product manufactures can provide documentation demonstrating that the products meet the criteria set forth under GS-37.

122


For those categories of products not covered by GS-37, such as floor strippers, furniture polishes, carpet cleaners, etc., they must meet the requirements of the California Code of Regulations low VOC cleaning products for the appropriate category. Product suppliers should be required to supply the necessary information and certifications to support this Policy.

Using portion control dilution equipment or pre-measured pouches will assure that the appropriate amount of concentrated products are used, and will minimize overall usage of chemical as well as reduce packaging wastes. To avoid risks posed by potential exposure to chemical concentrates specify and use only closed dispensing systems. Concentrates sold for manual dilution in buckets or bottles can actually increase the risk of employee exposure. If utilizing mechanical or automated dilution equipment it is important that they meet the appropriate local plumbing codes and are maintained properly to insure that the dilution rates are accurate not only at the time of installation, but on an on-going basis. Installation of proper hot and cold water supplies and drain systems in janitor closets will facilitate the utilization of chemical dispensing equipment for the proper dilution of concentrated cleaning chemicals.

To ensure that these features remain effective over time, it is critical that building owners institute operations and maintenance training and documentation programs for chemical usage and floor maintenance procedures. This requirement should be included in the Low Impact Cleaning Policy. Assistance in developing and administering the programs should be sought from the cleaning product and/or service providers.Key steps to Success: To achieve leadership in environmental responsibility within cleaning systems, facility managers must consider the life cycle of their building materials and maintenance methods, and incorporate concepts of total cost of performance, safety in use and application, and overall environmental impact. ‘Sustainable cleaning’ encompasses more than the concept of minimizing exposure of personnel to potentially hazardous chemicals. All stages of sustainable cleaning can be measured for environmental performance, including product and equipment selection, installation, operation, long-term maintenance, and eventual disposal. Environmental and safety aspects of sustainable cleaning are defined in this requirement as follows: Facility safety, health & environmental practices must be compliant with applicable

local regulatory requirements. The Facility Manager shall develop and communicate proper disposal methods for all

cleaning wastes, including floor care stripping wastes. Janitorial service personnel shall be properly trained in the use, maintenance and

disposal of cleaning chemicals, dispensing equipment, and packaging. Training records certifying each person’s specific training dates shall be kept by the cleaning contractor.

Supplier’s Material Safety Data Sheets and Technical Bulletins for all cleaning and maintenance chemicals shall be provided by suppliers. The suppliers of cleaning products shall provide full disclosure (see definition) of ingredients on Material Safety

123


Data Sheets. Additionally, suppliers must provide training materials on the hazards and proper use of housekeeping chemicals for workers. (The intent of the above disclosure requirement is to have a facility disclosure policy that is responsive to the needs of health and safety personnel. If the above disclosure requirement is not met on the MSDS, then disclosure can be provided by suppliers through other means that are easily accessible to health and safety personnel. Over time, the intention is that this credit will move toward requiring that this full disclosure of ingredients be included on the Material Safety Data Sheets and is responsive to the needs of both housekeeping management and maintenance personnel, as well as health and safety personnel.)

Low environmental impact cleaning products shall be used in accordance with the Green Seal GS-37 standard. Products not covered by GS-37 (such as floor finishes or stripper) shall meet or be less volatile than the California Code of Regulations maximum allowable VOC levels for the appropriate cleaning product category. Floor coating products shall be free of heavy metals such as zinc. The intent of this requirement is to reduce the content and use of toxic materials in cleaning systems.

A log shall be kept that details all housekeeping chemicals used or stored on the premises (stored products include those that are no longer used, but still in the building). Attachments to the log shall include manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheets and Technical Bulletins. The log shall identify: An MSDS and/or label from the manufacturer specifying that the product meets the

VOC content level for the appropriate product category as found in the California Code of Regulations.

A copy of the Green Seal Certification, or If the product has not been certified by Green Seal, the manufacturer will provide

test data documenting that the product meets each of the environmental health & safety criteria set forth in Green Seal Standard GS-37.

When available, chemical concentrates dispensed from portion-controlled, closed dilution systems must be used as alternatives to open dilution systems or non-concentrated products.

Selection of flooring used in the facility, whether a new installation or replacement, shall consider all potential environmental impacts over the full life of the floor system, including raw material extraction and use, installation practices, maintenance requirements, overall useful life, hygiene, appearance and safety attributes, and eventual disposal. A scoring system should be used to develop and evaluate alternatives, including consideration of the total cost of ownership. The selection of flooring materials and their maintenance must consider the full life cycle impacts in order to ensure they will offer the most sustainable floor care system.

Resilient tile and hard flooring coating systems, including floor finishes and restoration products, shall be slip-resistant (as defined by ASTM Std D-2047). Additionally, these floor coating systems shall be highly durable in order to maintain an acceptable level of protection and appearance for a minimum of one (1) year before stripping/removal and re-coating is necessary.

124


A written floor maintenance plan and log will be kept which details the number of coats of floor finish being applied as the base coat and top coats, along with relevant maintenance/restoration practices and the dates of these activities. The duration between stripping and re-coat cycles shall be documented.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:The City of Calgary is implementing green procurement as a means to fulfil our ISO 14000 requirements and our Sustainable Building Policy (LEED Silver certification on all new and existing buildings). Recently, our Supply department sent out a Expression Of Interest document for Environmentally Responsible Janitorial Cleaning Products. The preferred environmental certification was the Green Seal (GS-37) criteria, in order to satisfy the Green Housekeeping requirement to achieve a LEED credit.

Our Canadian suppliers are concerned, however, that products with the EcoLogo certification (Environmental Choice Program) for industrial/institutional cleaners (CCD-146) don't meet the requirements considered under the LEED spec. ECP has certified a wide variety of products, and has upgraded the criteria for cleaning products to make it consistent and equal to the GS-37 criteria.

Is the EcoLogo certification considered equivalent to the GS-37 spec for the LEED Green Housekeeping credit? If not, will this change with the recent developments under the Environmental Choice Program?

I have compared the 2 sets of criteria myself (I have a strong background in environmental/industrial chemistry), and have found the ECP criteria to be more stringent in many areas than the GS-37 criteria. There were only a few compounds that were not restricted by the ECP prior to the update to the criteria.

It would be of major significance for Canadian municipalities and Canadian markets if the LEED program would consider equivalent (and more stringent) certifications. ECP has developed criteria for over 40 product groups (compared to <10 for Green Seal), many of which would be applicable to the LEED program. Any information you can offer is greatly appreciated! I look forward to hearing from you.Source of Question: City of Calgary Environmental Management – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C5.4 - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:The Green Seal (GS-37) standard is the referenced standard identified by LEED-EB. For LEED-EB IEQ Credit 5.4 products need to be Green Seal certified under standard GS-37 or document that they meet the requirement of GS-37. This means that LEED-EB participants that want to propose the use of or a product certified under a proposed alternate standard needs to provide the following information:(1) Provide documentation that the product meets the requirements of the proposed alternate

standard (in this case CCD-146).(2) List all the requirements of the referenced standard (in this case GS-37).

125


(3) Identify the requirements of the referenced standard that you believe are met or exceeded by the requirements of the proposed alternate standard. For each of these requirements of the referenced standard provide the documentation that

shows that the requirements of proposed alternate standard exceed the requirements of the referenced standard.

(4) Identify the requirements of the referenced standard that you believe are not met or exceeded by the requirements of the proposed alternate standard.

For each of these requirements of the referenced standard provide documentation that product meets or exceeds the requirements of the referenced standard.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.5: Low Environmental Impact House Keeping Disposable Products Policy

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.5 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#1Rather then setting a standard of 100% recycled content containing a minimum of 30% post-consumer recycled content, we might be better served to follow US EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPG). There are three advantages to this: First, the levels in the CPG guidelines have been periodically increased which provides a built in system of improvement. Secondly, the major paper companies understand and use the CPG guidelines and much of their sales literature often identifies which products meet the CPG standards. As a result, this will make it easier for people to find the products that meet this credit. Finally, the CPG guidelines cover a number of product categories (toilet tissue, paper towels, facial tissues and industrial wipes), so I think this will make it more encompassing than how the current credit is written.

The possible language could be as follows: Use disposable janitorial paper products and trash bags that meet the minimum requirements of USEPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for the appropriate category. Furthermore, it is preferable that the paper products be manufactured without the additional use of elemental chlorine or chlorine compounds(Processed Chlorine-Free). Source of Question: Steve Ashkin – LEED EB CommitteeResponse: In the ballot draft of LEED EB the following language will be used: “For disposable janitorial paper products and trash bags, use products that meet the minimum requirements of USEPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for the appropriate category. Furthermore, it is preferable that the paper products be manufactured without the additional use of elemental chlorine or chlorine compounds (Processed Chlorine-Free).”

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.6: Low Environmental Impact Pest Management PolicyQuestions: None. (Groups 1-15)

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 5.7: Outdoor Chemical Storage Policy and Facility

126


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.7 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1For Green Housekeeping, can an underground parking garage be considered outside (for location of chemical storage facility)? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse-LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: The goal is to avoid exposure of facility occupants to the chemicals being stored. This credit can be earned by having a separate outdoor building for storing chemicals or by having an indoor room for storing chemicals that has structural deck to deck partitions with separate outside exhausting, no air re-circulation and negative pressure maintained in the chemical storage room. So the answer is yes if the requirements described for a compliant indoor storage room are met and no if they are not.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C5.7 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#2By creating a credit for "outdoor storage,” LEED-EB inadvertently, or perhaps intentionally, creates an incentive for buildings to move their cleaning product storage outdoors. While I believe that the intent is to remove a potential source of contamination from inside the building, this issue can be addressed through credit 5.2. Furthermore, the unintended consequence of 5.7 is that it will make availability of cleaning supplies more difficult, which will result in less cleaning and more serious indoor environmental quality problems. For us to have the ability to protect occupant health and improve productivity, we need to make cleaning products more readily available and not create barriers.

It is my recommendation that we replace Outdoor Storage with the following:Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Equipment Policy.

Requirement: Use of vacuum cleaners that have been proven to meet theCarpet & Rug Institute's Green Label Program and floor machines whichutilize dust guards and are equipped with vacuum attachments.

The rationale for this is that many vacuums actually do NOT capture the fine particles which can be inhaled deep into the lungs and cause respiratory problems, and which can also damage building systems and delicate electronic equipment. The CRI program actually tests vacuums to insure that they are affective at capturing the dust. This standard is readily available and would make meeting the requirements straight-forward. In addition, the use of floor machines creates large amounts of fine particle dust. The use of guards and vacuum devices on these pieces of equipment will reduce the dust and will not create major financial barriers for the suppliers. Recommending the appropriate vacuums and floor machines would be a very valuable addition to protecting building occupant and maintenance personnel's health -- as is consistent with the intent of these credits. Source of Question: Steve Ashkin – LEED EB ConsultantResponse: In the Ballot draft of LEED EB the proposed changes will be made and storage issues will be included in credit 5.2. This will require providing a structurally isolated space for mixing and storage of cleaning chemicals that has negative pressure and a separate outside exhaust.

Question - LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C5.7 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1:

127


IEQ Credit 7-Green Housekeeping. The LEED EB rating system shows Outdoor Chemical Storage as credit 5.7 while the reference guide shows Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Equipment. Which credit is it? If it is still Outdoor Chemical Storage, why is there a need for outdoor/isolated storage of environmentally friendly chemicals? This almost seems contradictory. Source of Question: Janssen Pharmaceutica via Johnson Controls Inc – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C5.7 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1: This has been corrected so the LEED-EB Pilot Program Reference Guide reflects the IEQ credit 5.7 Outdoor Chemical Storage which is included in the Pilot Draft of LEED-EB. This outdoor storage credit can be earned by having an isolated and ventilated indoor storage area that meets the same requirements as the cleaning closets in LEED-EB. (A revised version of the LEED-EB Pilot Reference Guide will be posted on the LEED-EB pilot participant only web page.)

IEQ Credit 5.7 is proposed to be changed for in the post pilot version of LEED-EB to cover low environmental impact cleaning equipment. This change should clear up any contradictions around chemical storage as the question indicates. For the purposes of the Pilot Program, participants can apply for credit 5.7 under the old outdoor storage requirements or by documenting an isolated and ventilated indoor chemical storage area that meets the same requirements as the cleaning closets in LEED-EB. . Pilot participants can also apply for an innovation credit by documenting their use of Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Equipment.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 6: Controllability of Systems

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Does this credit actually expect that there would be individual controls for all persons in the entire building? Is this level of control practical in situations where most people are in open cubicle or modular furnished offices? Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: No, providing individual controls to 100% of the building occupants is not required to earn these points. Two points are available under this credit for controllability of systems. Both points require that individual controls be provided to individuals for airflow, temperature and lighting. Providing this controllability to 45% of the building occupants earns one point and providing it for an additional 45% of the building occupants earns a second point.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#2Can a courtroom with its own VAV box satisfy the individual controlled requirement, even though there will be public visitors in the courtrooms? We typically design a VAV box per 500 to 1000 sf for perimeter offices and a VAV box per 750 to 1000 sf for interior core areas. Would this meet the requirement? Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: A courtroom with its own VAV box does not appear to satisfy the requirement for individual controlled environment since this does not provide individual controls for the courtroom occupants. The LEED for New Construction Reference Guide states that VAV system for non-perimeter areas can use a 1:1:2 terminal box to controller to occupant ratio to capture this credit.

128


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C6 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#3I have a question regarding IEQc6. I have reviewed the LEED 2.0 CIR EQ106-Credit 6.1 question and ruling.

4/5/2001 - Credit Interpretation RequestEQ106-Credit 6.1 Credit Interpretation Request:Good laboratory design practice precludes the use of operable windows in spaces that have fume hoods or biological safety cabinets. This is because unpredictable airflow patterns (eddies) created by wind can cause fume hoods and biological safety cabinets to eject hazardous fumes and viruses, posing a threat to the health and safety of the occupants. Because of this fact, we would like to take perimeter laboratory space out of the equation. We are requesting relief from the requirements of this credit as it relates tolaboratory space.

4/5/2001 - Project Manager's RulingLaboratories that do not offer operable windows do not qualify for thispoint.

Considering this ruling is over two years old I would like to bring this question to your attention once again and to see if the USGBC's has be willing to reconsider the ruling.Would it be acceptable to exclude areas from this credit that would have severe health and safety implications? I propose to perform the calculations on all regularly occupied rooms that do not contain fume hoods. This would include all areas except Laboratories (approx. 50% of the building). Source of Question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: This proposal seems reasonable and it will be forwarded to the IEQ tag for its consideration since there is substantial LEED NC CIR history on this topic already.

Question - LEED-EB PILOT - IEQ-C6 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1:There is a major difference between the LEED EB and the LEED NC version.

LEED EB requires we provide controls for each individual for airflow temperature and lighting.

LEED NC requires for interior zones :provide controls for each individual for airflow temperature and lighting. For Exterior Zones: provide one operable window and one lighting control zone per 200 SF

I would like to point out that there is the possibility that projects achieving this credit under LEED NC will not qualify for this credit once they resubmit under LEED EB.

Will LEED EB be modifying the credit to mirror the LEED NC document?

I understand that LEED NC divides the requirements into 6.1 Perimeter and 6.2 Interior while LEED EB divides the requirements into 6.1 45% and 6.2 90%.

129


Would it be acceptable to submit the following combination of the two methods?:

1) Calculate perimeter areas as per LEED NC,2) Calculate interior areas as per LEED NC,3) Use the weighted average of Perimeter and Interior areas to Calculate a total compliance percentage which would then be compared to the LEED EB requirements of 45% and 90%.

For Example:Perimeter Zones: 5000 sqft @ 60% compliantInterior Zones: 2000 sqft @ 25% compliantTotal area = 5000 + 2000 = 7000Resulting % = 60% x 5000/7000 + 25% x 2000/7000 = 50%

This example would result in 1 point being earned for EQc6.1 and one credit not achieved for EQc6.2. Source of Question: Keen Engineering – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: LEED-EB PILOT – IEQ-C6 - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1: The building can either meet the requirements as defined in LEED-NC points 6.1 & 6.2 or meet the requirements as defined in LEED-EB 6.1 & 6.2. Combining the NC and NB standards is not acceptable.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 7: Thermal Comfort

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 7.1: Compliance with ASHRAE Standard 55-1992, Addenda 1995 for Thermal Comfort Standards.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C7.1 - QUESTION GROUP 12 - Q#1For IEQ credits 7.1 and 7.2, a requirement exists for monitoring the humidity levels of the building in addition to the temperature. I have heard that the City of Portland is working with the USGBC regarding the humidity portion of LEED credits. We believe that it is not necessary to monitor humidity in the Portland area. Is this question currently being resolved through the USGBC, or is this a new proposal (humidity monitoring not applicable to Portland), or should I submit our information on our temperature monitoring equipment with an accompanying statement regarding our belief that humidity monitoring is not necessary in Portland? Thanks for your assistance on these credits. Source of Question: Nike – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse:The equipment for monitoring humidity levels must be integrated with control equipment to control humidity and humidity must be maintained with in the boundaries of no more than 45% relative humidity in the cooling season and no less than 25% relative humidity in the heating season. (Note: These performance standards are based on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania humidity performance standards developed and adopted for office buildings)

130


An exemption may be granted to the requirement that humidity be maintained with in these bounds, if the regional climate is such that it is not customary in the region to install equipment to increase or decrease humidity levels in either the winter or the summer. To earn such an exemption, documentation must be provided demonstrating that either in the winter or in the summer or in both seasons, it is not customary in the region for humidity to be controlled.

To earn these credits, the level of humidity in the building needs to be monitored as specified, whether or not equipment for increasing or decreasing humidity levels is present in the building. Measuring the humidity is part of knowing what conditions are actually being delivered in the building. (Note: No LEED NC CIR decisions on this issue were found in a review of the LEED NC CIRs.)

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 7.2: Permanent Monitoring System

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C7.2 - QUESTION GROUP 1 - Q#1Many facilities may have these systems in operation, however, the actual control is not performed from the central control station, but locally. Do you get credit simply if you have a system, whichever way it is operated? Source of Question: Orlando City Hall, City of Orlando, FL - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: To earn this credit it in necessary to install and maintain a permanent temperature and humidity monitoring system configured to provide the operators control over thermal comfort performance and effectiveness of the humidification and/or dehumidification systems in the building. It is further necessary to document the monitoring points and the operator interface. It does not matter if the control over the system is exercised centrally or locally as long as control is exercised using the information gathered by this monitoring system.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 8: Daylighting and Views

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C8.1-8.3 - QUESTION GROUP 9 - Q#1The Moss Landing Marine Laboratories building incorporates a narrow footprint with substantial glazing. Daylighting calculations as stated in the LEED reference guide are time consuming. We propose to submit floor plans showing all regularly occupied areas and color photographs showing daylight penetrating and views from the space. Would this proposed method be acceptable to USGBC? We feel that daylighting and views can be proven in this manner. Source of question: Moss Landing Marine Laboratory – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: The calculations are the accepted basis for earning points under this credit. For calculation efficiency if there are rooms with similar circumstances, relative to lighting and views, consider grouping the rooms and justifying these grouping. For example group rooms with similar floor plans and similar window areas and similar window situation in the rooms. Once this is done, do the calculations for one room in each group, choosing the room that appears likely to have the worst result. Then use the calculated results for all of the rooms in each group. Finally, justify the groupings used and the equivalence of the outcome to the outcome if calculations had been done for each of the rooms individually.

131


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C8.1-8.3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2Do building occupants have to be seated to meet this requirement? Do we meet the requirement if they have to stand to get a direct line of sight to glazing?Source of Question: Nike – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: Based on the response to LEED NC Inquiries # 0064-Eqc82-092801 and # 0006-Eqc82-071001, the use of modular furniture systems and partitions that block the direct views on seated building occupants, but do not block the views of standing building occupants, does not interfere with meeting the requirements for earning points under this credit. Fixed full height walls or full height de-mountable walls are included in the calculations for this credit. Modular furniture systems and partitions 3.5 to 5 feet tall are not included in the calculations for this credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C8.1-8.3 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#3 Our project building has a center atrium with about 9000 SF of glazing that provides significant daylighting into most all of our occupied areas of the building. In the determination of achieving direct line of sight to vision glazing from regularly occupied spaces, can we include those spaces that have direct views to the upward facing atrium glazing? Are clouds and birds an acceptable view alternative to landscape? Source of Question: Johnson Diversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: The atrium described contributes to daylighting of the building but if building occupants can only see the sky and not landscapes through the windows in the atrium, then the atrium cannot be counted as contributing to the views of the occupants.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C8.1-8.3 - QUESTION GROUP 10 - Q#4I am currently trying to advise on a LEED-EB pilot, and the question concerning the calculation of daylighting came up. I went to the Reference Guide for 2.0 for assistance, and many of my questions were answered. Unfortunately, the Guide seems to assume enclosed individual offices along the perimeter of the building. My question, where the guide is silent, is how does one take into account the placement of non-permanent partitions, cubicles, into account in the calculations as they would obviously impact the amount of daylight reaching the interior office space? Please advise.Source of Question: CA Integrated Waste Management BoardResponse: See response to question: LEED EB-Pilot: IEQ-C8.1-8.3 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2 (check this @ number)

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C8.1-8.3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#5Our project building has a center atrium with about 9000 SF of glazing that provides significant daylighting into most all of our occupied areas of the building. In the determination of achieving direct line of sight to vision glazing from regularly occupied spaces, can we include those spaces that have direct views to the upward facing atrium glazing? Are clouds and birds an acceptable view alternative to landscape? Source of Question: JohnsonDiversey – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: To earn this credit there must be access to windows with views of landscapes.

132


Question – LEED EB-Pilot – IEQ-C8.1-8.3 - QUESTION GROUP 11 - Q#6At New Belgium Brewing Company, there are many areas such as warehouse, storage, shop, bottling areas and storage that are lit with Solatubes (a product by the Sunpipe Company), skylights, monitors and fluorescent lighting that is controlled on occupancy sensors as well as light sensors in most areas. While some of these areas are not regularly occupied and would be considered exempt from the calculation, there are is still a substantial portion of the building that would fall under this category.

In reading the intent of this credit these solatubes and skylights do provide a connection to the outdoors while an actual view to the outdoors would be questionable as it is a view to the sky. I was looking for a credit interpretation in regards to the LEED EB RatingSystem. Source of Question: New Belgium Brewing – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: The Solar tubes can contribute to earning the daylighting credit but do not contribute to earning the views credit.

Indoor Environmental Quality, Credit 9: Contemporary IAQ Practice Questions: None.

General IAQ Questions :

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – General IAQ Question:We have an extremely large number of buildings on post. We also employ a wide variety of uses w/in buildings. In question are our buildings that involve painting inside. Painting of tanks, vehicles, and metal projects, etc. Will LEED EB requirements and credits govern "greening" facility operations, such as painting, dry cleaning and other in-door functions that effect indoor air quality? (Group 11)Source of Question: Fort Lewis Army Base – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: Eventually LEED EB will probable address these specific commercial/industrial processes. Let us know if there are any particular issues that need to be resolved during the pilot for your building in the pilot.

133


Section 6: Innovation and Accredited Professional Points

Innovation and Accredited Professional Points, Credit 1: Innovations in Operations and Upgrades

List of Suggested Topics for Innovation Credits

1. Evaluate a cleaning or pest control product, being used or being considered for use in the building, on the basis of a life-cycle assessment system based on ISO 14040 principles.

2. Evaluate a cleaning or pest control product, being used or being considered for use in the building, on the basis of a risk assessment for users and building occupants.

3. Provide an education program for the building occupants on: the benefits of the green operation of this building to the occupants of this building and the environment; and how the occupants of this building can help the building operate in a green way and improve the buildings green performance achievements. Evaluate results and refine occupant education program to increase impact.

4. Ride sharing programs that include providing a database on ride sharing opportunities and guaranteed get home policy for participants that get stranded.

5. Incentives for using public transportation and walking.

6. Implement control program for dust mites.

7. After storm water runoff reduction credit Reduce/maintain the rate and quantity of storm water runoff from existing conditions by an additional 25% (50% total).

8. Evaluate the lighting needs of the occupants using the process shown in Chapter 10 of the 9th Edition IESNA Handbook and install/maintain a lighting system which addresses the Design Issues designated as “Very Important” in the above Lighting Design Guide matrix for all regularly occupied areas.

9. Evaluate the lighting needs of the occupants using the process shown in Chapter 10 of the 9th Edition IESNA Handbook and install/maintain a high-quality lighting system which addresses all relevant Design Issues shown in the above Lighting Design Guide matrix for all regularly occupied areas.

10. Implement atmosphere friendly grounds keeping maintenance procedures.

11. Other innovations developed per innovation by the project team.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – I&D-C1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1What is meant by the phrase “using the LEED Credit Equivalence process?”

134


Source of Question: A.J. Martini – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: This means justifying that the proposed innovation provides environmental benefits equal or greater than the benefits provided by one or more of the credits already included in LEED EB.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – I&D-C1 - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2Revised definitions of E&A credits 3.2 & 3.3 Source of Question: Several Verbal Inquiries.Response: Proposed Additional Suggested Innovations Credit for LEED EB(1) Use continuous monitoring at the equipment level, diagnostics and performance indices to

maintain equipment and systems performance at a high level on an ongoing basis.

This will be added as a suggested innovation credit during the LEED EB Pilot. This will also be included in the Ballot draft for LEED EB as point 3.2 under E&A Credit 3: Continuos Building Commissioning and Maintenance. In the Ballot draft for LEED EB, the Pilot Draft point E&A 3.2 “Have contracts or in house resources in place for post warranty equipment maintenance,” will be included as part of the requirements for earning point E&A 3.3.

Question on Innovative Design Process, Credit 1: Innovations in Building Operations and Upgrades:Proposed Lighting Quality Credit

Credit XX: Visual Comfort

INTENT:Provide a comfortable visual environment that supports the productive and healthy performance of the building occupants.

REQUIREMENTUpgrade and maintain the Lighting system to meet the lighting needs of the building occupants. This includes: (1) Evaluate the lighting needs of the occupants using the process shown in Chapter 10 of

the 9th Edition IESNA Handbook and install/maintain a lighting system which addresses the Design Issues designated as "Very Important" in the above Lighting Design Guide matrix for all regularly occupied areas. (1 point)

(2) Evaluate the lighting needs of the occupants using the process shown in Chapter 10 of the 9th Edition IESNA Handbook and install/maintain a lighting system which addresses ALL relevant Design Issues in the above Lighting Design Guide matrix for all regularly occupied areas. (1 point)

TECHNOLOGIES/STRATEGIESImplement renovation design strategies to eliminate glare and other sources of visual discomfort. Employ task/ambient, or other strategies, to achieve the quality and quantity of lighting appropriate to the task in all regularly occupied areas.

Source of Question: Johnson Controls

135


Response: During the LEED EB Pilot up to 2 of the 4 available innovation points can be earned by meeting the requirements specified in this question. These points will be included as additional IEQ credit and points in the initial ballot draft for LEED EB.

Innovation and Accredited Professional Points, Credit 2: LEED Existing Building Accredited Professional

Question – LEED EB-Pilot – Innovations Credits - General - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1What constitutes being a LEED Accredited Professional during the LEED EB Pilot since a LEED Existing Building Accredited Professional exam is not yet available? (Group 1)Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse - LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: For the LEED EB Pilot, a LEED Professional Accreditation Exam for Existing Buildings is not yet available. For the LEED EB Pilot, this credit can be earned by having someone on the project team who is a LEED for New Construction Accredited professional, who has also attended a LEED EB workshop or participated in 2 LEED EB Conference calls.

136


Section 7: LEED EB Pilot Process and Schedule Questions

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - Process - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1Regarding the schedule, our 100% Construction Documents may not be completed by March 2003. Should we go ahead and submit what we have by then? The documentation will be in the CD phase, but may not be at 100%. (Group 1)Source of the Question: Byron Rogers Courthouse-LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse: Since building operating data is required for the full filing for LEED EB, the filing for certification should be made when the required operating data has been collected. Filings can be made after March 2003. It is recommended that a preliminary application be submitted when the building systems and processes have been brought up to the desired sustainability standards and you are prepared to start collecting the building performance data needed for the full application for certification.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - Process - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2How many months of performance data is required in the application for LEED EB Certification? Source of Question: A number of verbal inquiriesResponse: The Overview of LEED for Existing Buildings, on page 4 of the Pilot Version of LEED EB, states:

“A facility seeking LEED EB certification must be tracked for one year and record in the documentation requirements 12 months of data showing that the building operation meets the LEED criteria for prerequisites and relevant credits. The only exception to this requirement is that in the initial certification under LEED EB the applicant may show that the most recent 3 months meet the standards. All subsequent applications for re-certification under LEED EB must include a full year of operating data.”

This means that once the policies and building system upgrades are in place, performance data needs to be collected that demonstrate that the policies have been followed over the performance period as well as what the measured energy and water consumption of the building actually are over the performance period.

The performance period required for LEED EB Certification is: For the first certification of a building under LEED EB the period over which

performance must be documented is at least 3 months. For all the subsequent re-certifications of a building under LEED EB the period over which

performance must be documented is the full period between the pervious certification and the request for re-certification. The minimum amount of performance data for re-certification is 1 year of performance data. The reason that performance must be documented over the full period between the pervious certification and the request for re-certification is so that there are not breaks in the documentation of performance. The details of documentation required are specified in the “Documentation Requirements” listed in LEED EB Pilot draft for each prerequisite and each credit.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - Process - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#3

137


What types of performance need to be documented over the performance period to support a LEED EB Certification application? Source of Question: A number of verbal inquiries:Response:The types of performance that need to be documented over the performance period are: All of the performance documentation specified in the “Documentation Requirements” for each LEED EB prerequisite and credit.

This includes: Documentation that demonstrates that the policies adopted have been followed over the performance period Documentation of the measured energy and water consumption over the performance period. Documentation that demonstrates that other actions specified in LEED EB for meeting prerequisites or earning credits have been carried out over the performance period. For example if the building is earning Site Credit 4.1 where there is not bus or commuter rail service near the building, provide the specified documentation that shuttle link service has been provided over the performance period.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - Process - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#4How does the requirement that performance data be provided to support LEED EB Certification Applications affect the process for filing LEED EB certification applications?Source of Question: A number of verbal inquiries:Response: The requirement that performance data be provided to support LEED EB Certification Applications makes the filings for LEED EB certification a two step process: (1) Filing Part 1 of the Application. Part 1 of the application includes all the information required

for the certification application except the performance documentation.(2) Filing Part 2 of the Application. Part 2 of the application includes all the performance

documentation.

138


Section 8: LEED EB Pilot General Questions

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - General - QUESTIONS GROUP 2 – Q#1:The LEED EB format does not number sub credits. This is somewhat confusing when trying to talk about different sub credits. (Group 2) Source of Question: Paladino and Co.Response: Numbering for sub-credits and sub-prerequisites are being added to the various LEED EB documents.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - General - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#1I am writing to request some feedback from your organization regarding the applicability of the LEED (or LEED-EB) Green Building designation to facilities which formerly utilized old inefficient boilers for providing steam heating and then upgraded the facility with highly-efficient combined heat and power (CHP), aka cogeneration, to supply, for example, a university campus or industrial complex with all of its heating andelectrical needs. As a member of a company which builds, owns and operates these types of facilities, I am interested in learning whether or not the Green Building designation might be applicable to the buildings which house the new equipment, or perhaps the entire facility itself. Any information on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (Group 10)Source of Question: Steve Lomax, Trigen-Baltimore Energy CorporateResponse: LEED EB certification is based on building performance. Since cogen reduces the amount of energy that needs to be used by buildings it could be part of a strategy to earn points for reduced energy use in buildings to earn point under LEED EB Energy Credit 1. In a campus setting the reduced energy use would need to be allocated among the individual buildings, preferably through metering.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - General - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#2How can I educate my organization about LEED EB and encourage they to get buildings LEED EB Certified? There is currently little understanding or sustainability issues in my organization. (Group 10)Response: One useful approach, if you cannot convince your organization to adopt LEED EB outright as the standard for building upgrades and operation, is to use a step by step approach to implementing the LEED EB building operation policies as a way of introducing your organization to LEED EB.

Pick out the operational credits an work on getting them implemented one group at a time - since for most of these there is little or no investment implementing these in not a difficult decision to make. By working your organizations way through these operational sustainability actions you accomplish Three things: (1) Your organization incrementally starts to build sustainability into its decision making process, (2) This lays the ground work for your organization making the sustainability decisions that do require an investment, and (3) This also lays the ground work for LEED EB Certification by getting operational actions implemented that earn the LEED EB operational credits.

139


Suggested place to start: (1) Green Cleaning(2) Green purchasing (3) ...

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - General - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#3We have been working on LEED-EB with a in-house group and now are looking at hiring a professional to complete the work. The costs we have received,and the costs I have talked to other Facility Managers for hiring a professional, appears to be very high. It appears very likely that you could spend 40,000 dollars to modify your systems (or less if the building is in good shape) for energy and water efficiency and to meet the other LEED-EB standards but spend 30,000 dollars to document you have met the LEED-EB guidelines. If this is the case, I cannot see the incentives andsupport all of us are hoping for in this new venture.

From your perspective: Is the required documentation (the 30,000 figure above excludes retro-commissioning) that complicated to require a professional approximately 250 hours to comply with the necessary documentation? (Group 11)Source of Question: Duke University – LEED EB Pilot ParticipantResponse: The LEED EB Pilot will be collecting information on the costs and benefits of LEED EB certification from the pilot participants. Given the level of interest in LEED EB we are confident that the benefits will exceed the costs for most buildings, but we do not yet have the information to document this expectation.

Question – LEED EB-Pilot - General - QUESTION GROUP __ - Q#4The TAG found it difficult to have productive conversations about the credits without a clear understanding of the scope of LEED-EB. It is understood that LEED-EB projects may be simply functioning buildings, with little or no construction or renovation taking place. What is less clear is how much renovation or remodeling is allowable before a project is referred to LEED-NC or LEED-CI.

Mike Arny said that the EB Committee has been working with a loose definition during the pilot, and plans to see what is learned that can help set some guidelines. Without a clearly defined scope regarding the amount of renovation/construction, the MR-TAG finds it difficult to assess how well the various credits fit, and how they should be defined. We also feel that it will be hard to have meaningful credits for projects that span too wide a spectrum.

Recommendation: the scope of projects for LEED-EB should be defined as clearly as possible, well before any effort to create a ballot draft of the credits. We also recommend that this scope be relatively narrow to allow for clearly defined credits. The TAG supports the definition from the January 2002 LEED-EB Checklist:

"LEED for Existing Buildings is a set of performance standards for the sustainable operation of existing buildings. It includes building operations and upgrades of systems and/or processes in

140


existing buildings where these upgrades do not significantly change the interior or exterior surfaces of the building."

It was noted, however, that at least one pilot project (the Pentagon Renovation) does not conform to this definition. The MR-TAG expects to be able to provide more specific and constructive input once the scope has been clearly defined. (Group 11)Source of Question/Comment: Materials and Resources TAGResponse: The LEED EB Pilot has accepted a broad range of existing buildings and existing building upgrade projects into the LEED EB Pilot to explore what range of building upgrade projects fit under LEED EB. The experience in the Pilot so far is that a wide range of building upgrade projects fit into LEED EB very well. LEED EB is just as stringent, and arguably more stringent then LEED NC, so nothing is gained by forcing projects into either LEED EB or LEED NC. It is proposed that in the Ballot draft of LEED EB that the guidance for building owners be that they should look at both LEED EB and LEED NC and decide for themselves which approach fits their project the best. For example, for the Materials & Resource Credit s under LEED EB, certification applicants need to adopt a specific policy AND demonstrate compliance with the policy over the performance period.

Question - LEED-EB PILOT – Other Questions - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1)So far, the initial certification process has taken quite a bit of time (not unexpected). There are reasons: learning curve, collecting/creating new documentation, etc. In your opinion, how much time should it take for re-certification? I realize if there are little to no changes in the facility, the re-certification process seems straight forward. I just want to be sure I am not overlooking something. (Group 14)Source of Question: Janssen Pharmaceutica via Johnson Controls Inc – LEED EB Pilot ProjectResponse - LEED-EB PILOT – Other Questions - QUESTIONS GROUP 14 - Q#1: The LEED-EB re-certification process, assuming there are no changes in the facility or facility operation policies, should be quite straight forward. Basically what is required are statements that the facility and the facility operation policies have not changed and documentation of building performance for each LEED-EB prerequisite and point over the performance period. The performance period is the whole time since the last certification for the building was received. The documentation will include metered data for things like energy and water consumption, records of things like purchases, waste disposal and recycling, and documentation that policies have been followed.

Question – LEED-EB PILOT - General - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:In follow up to our phone conversation from yesterday morning, I was hoping you could clarify if our office space is eligible for certification under the LEED EB program. Here are the relevant facts:

1. 80,000 sf office building completed in late 1999.2. The building is owned and occupied by 2 companiesa. Renaissance Learning Systems - 70% ownership and occupy a comparable percentage of the building spaceb. PLANNING Design Build - 30% ownership and space occupancy

141


3. The original building design includes many sustainable features. We believe a LEED-EB certified level is achievable for a $200,000 investment assuming plus certain changes in housekeeping, landscaping and recycling practices.4. Renaissance Learning Systems is unwilling to invest in necessary building upgrades to achieve LEED EB certification.5. PLANNING Design Build has invested heavily to develop its sustainable design and construction practice. PLANNING believes that we need to demonstrate market leadership by occupying a LEED certified office. If we can not attain LEED certification in our present space, we may have to build a new facility.6. PLANNING Design Build is acting as property manager for the entire building. We are able to modify housekeeping practices for our space and common areas. We will also be able to change lawn maintenance and snow removal practices to conform with LEED EB.

My assessment is that we are not eligible to apply for LEED EB unless we apply for the entire building...which is not practical given the majority owner's lack of interest. I also believe that we are not eligible to apply for Commercial Interiors because this is not a new construction project. Can you offer us any options to participate in the LEED program given our current set of circumstances? Thank you for your consideration. I will await your reply.

Source of Question: Ken Pientka, PLANNING Design Build, Inc. – LEED EB Pilot Project

Response – LEED-EB PILOT - General - QUESTION GROUP 16 - Q#1:LEED-EB is the appropriate LEED rating system for your building since it is an existing building, a total renovation is not being planned, you plan to address ongoing operations and you do control the whole site and facility for maintenance and cleaning. Your company can apply for LEED-EB certification for the portion of the building that your company occupies and controls. The challenge that this creates for your organization is the you will need to show that the portion of the building that you control meets all the prerequisites of LEED-EB and that the portion of the building that you control also meets the requirements of each credit in LEED-EB that your organization chooses to apply for. Even if you are applying for certification for only part of the building, you are encouraged wherever possible to apply actions across the whole building or site. For example since you control the cleaning across the whole building, you should apply the green cleaning actions across the whole building.

142


Appendix A

Numbering System for LEED EB Pilot Questions

The LEED EB questions are numbered as follows:

Pilot Process Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: Pilot Process – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

Sustainable Site Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: SS-Px.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__LEED EB-Pilot: SS-Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

Water Efficiency Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: WE - Px.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__LEED EB-Pilot: WE - Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

E&A Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: EA - Px.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__LEED EB-Pilot: EA - Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

Materials and Resources Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: MR - Px.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__LEED EB-Pilot: MR - Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

Indoor Environmental Quality Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: IEQ - Px.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__LEED EB-Pilot: IEQ - Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

Innovation Credit Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: Innovation Credits - Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

Accredited Professional Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: Accredited Prof. Questions - Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

Other Questions:

LEED EB-Pilot: Other Questions - Cx.x – Questions Group #__ - Q#__

143