Comment on the New LEED Rating System Draft to be Released in 2012

97 replies [Last post]
LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 05 2010 LEEDuser Moderator Post a Comment

Update: Learn about the LEED 2012 3rd public comment period, March 1–20, 2012.

USGBC has released complete revisions of its LEED rating systems, and has opened a first public comment period, going from Nov. 8 to Jan. 14, 2011 (extended from Dec. 31, 2010).

I published an analysis of key changes to the LEED-NC draft here.

You can download copies of all the drafts and see other information here.

USGBC asked us at LEEDuser to consider ways in which we could encourage members of our community to give feedback on the revisions to LEED, and we offered to set up this forum. USGBC staff will be monitoring this forum, and we will submit all comments on the new LEED draft as public comments, on your behalf.

So please review the LEED revisions and share your thoughts with the LEEDuser community and USGBC below!

AttachmentSize
BD&C Public Comment Draft.pdf2.79 MB
EBOM Public Comment Draft.pdf1.83 MB
Homes Public Comment Draft.pdf2.13 MB
ID&C Public Comment Draft.pdf1.97 MB
ND Public Comment Draft.pdf1.34 MB

97 Comments

0
0
William Wong
May 09 2011
Guest
872 Thumbs Up

Current registered project shifts to New Rating Systems

Could project currently registered under a rating system such as LEED NC 2009 opt to the new rating system such as LEED Data Centre at the time when the new rating system is available in 2012? If possible, how does it work?

1
3
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. May 19 2011 LEEDuser Moderator

William, that should be possible, yes. You would simply register a new project under LEED 2012.

2
3
0
April Ambrose Territory Manager, Viridian Jul 06 2011 LEEDuser Member 3223 Thumbs Up

My question is when will we be required to use the new 2012 version of the rating systems? And is there a grace period during which we can continue to use 2009 versions or choose to upgrade to a 2012 version?

Here is the reason for this question: we do a lot of campus guidance credit work with local campuses. We are required to submit both the campus credits and the individual project reviews under the same version of the rating system. Thus, we are trying to figure out how to help campuses plan ahead for submission of campus credits and individual facilities. An easy way to do this would be to register all of their proposed projects now. Then they could use the same previously approved campus credit submittal for all of these projects. This would create the greatest efficiency in time and money. Alternatively, if the individual project would rate better under LEED 2012, then we could choose to upgrade just that project to not use campus guidance and/or begin working on the 2012 campus guidance upgraded submittal.

The only slight answer to this question that I have found is from the "LEED Rating System Development FAQ" document:

Q: "I have projects using a current or older version of LEED. Will these projects be required to follow this proposed updates?"

A: "Projects currently registered with LEED should follow the version under which they are currently registered. Project teams will not be required or able to register for the updated rating system until it has undergone a ballot vote by USGBC membership. Prior to ballot, the proposed rating system will go through at least two public comment and response periods. Projects that have not yet certified at the time of launch will still be able to certify under the rating system which they are registered."

3
3
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Aug 01 2011 LEEDuser Moderator

April, there are still projects using LEED-NC v2.1, even though there have since been releases of LEED-NC v2.2 and v2009. GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). did announce earlier this year that v2.1 projects would be required to complete certification or re-register with a newer rating system, but just to give you some idea, there is a long grace period.

You will have until the release of the LEED  2012 rating system, currently projected for Nov. 2012, to register under LEED 2009, so you have some time to see how the new rating system is developing and make your choice as to which is better for the projects.

LEEDuser has a guide to the second public comment draft of LEED 2012, and a forum for posting thoughts and questions.

Post a Reply
0
0
Jeremy Cressman VP GM Commercial Business Unit American Standard Brands
Apr 06 2011
Guest
268 Thumbs Up

Meeting WaterSense Specification for Fixtures in WE Credits

I am please to see the draft LEED reference the EPA WaterSense fixture specification, but I have concern -- the current use of WaterSense for urinals and commercial (flushvalve) toilets, does not take into account the manufacturer effort to "Universalize" the fixture and establish flow-rate from the flush-valve volume.

A single urinal that we manufacture, like our Washbrook, will operate effectively at a range of .125gpf - 1.0gpf. This simplifies inventory, eliminates duplication of packaging and technical documents, and allows selection of multiple flush options depending on the facility requirements.

But today, this same urinal exceeds the maximum of WaterSense of .5gpf. The system of Flush-valve and fixture is what should be considered, or only the flush-valve upon which we base the system flush volume.

The WaterSense guideline does not yet address specialty fixtures for children, hospitals, prisons, clinical application.

Post a Reply
0
0
Linda Smithe
Jan 14 2011
Guest
587 Thumbs Up

PFc Occupant Experience Survey

Requirements referrers to Appendix A. Provide Appendix A in next round.

1
2
0
David Smith Jan 14 2011 Guest 87 Thumbs Up

SS Credit: Heat Island Reduction
Please change
"Use open-grid pavement system Pavements that consist of loose substrates supported by a grid of a more structurally sound grid or webbing. Pervious concrete and porous asphalt are not considered open grid as they are considered bounded materials. Unbounded, loose substrates do not transfer and store heat like bound and compacted materials do.(at least 50% pervious)"
to read:
"Use open-grid pavement system (at least 30% pervious)"
There are very few concrete grid paving units with 50% open surface area or 50% pervious materials at the surface that meet ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services C1319, the product standard for concrete grids. Most concrete grids are 30-40% open surface area as the remainder needs to be concrete for structural support of vehiccles.
As written, the 50% percentage excludes all concrete grid systems and I don't think that was the intention of the writers. 30% minimum pervious materials at the surface allows for sufficient grass to grow and provide cooling as intented by this credit.
Concrete grid systems can be completely covered with topsoil (not just openings) and sodded or planted with grass seed such that the entire surface is grass. That is not typically done, but it is a design option that can help further achieve this credit.

SS Credit: Rainfall Management
Please clarify "Manage onsite the runoff from...." I understand the 95th percentile event. However, one could interpret "manage onsite" as a means (or excuse) to detain and slowly release the 95th percentile rain event with a large detention pond when a permeable pavement might be more cost-effective and consume less land. I don't think encouraging detention ponds is the intention of this credit. I am respectfuly requesting to please find words that encourage volume reduction on site which of course directly helps pollutant reduction. This suggests a greater emphasis on onsite infiltration whenever possible. Thank you.

2
2
0
Aaron Desatnik Jan 31 2011 Guest 100 Thumbs Up

I literally get dozens of calls a week from people either looking to take one of the LEED exams or trying to understand the credential maintenance process. There are two components:

1. I completely agree with the need for a continuous raising of the bar. How can we expect teams to design better buildings if they're not learning about the newest technologies, processes, etc? It's like expecting increasingly efficient businesses without online project management tools, time sheets and workplans. It's simply absurd.

2. I completely agree that USGBC and GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). could have done more to prepare people for the transition. It was really a matter of time before this credit came to pass (or at least be considered). Not only did they do a poor job communicating the requirements, but they did a great job making the life of LEED AP's a nightmare. Why not give numbers and enable providers to submit credits? Why no maintain the one-time-a-year CEU deadline? AIA and other organizations do this, and it makes life easier for people. At some point in the near future, LEED will not be as dominant as it currently is, and USGBC could have used this as an opportunity to address this criticism. It was a serious missed opportunity for them.

Post a Reply
0
0
Linda Smithe
Jan 14 2011
Guest
587 Thumbs Up

MRc Bio Based Materials

Clarify Option 2: " Meet the requirement of Option 1." If you meet Option 1 why would you consider Option 2 with the addition of All materials must have 3rd party certifications....

Post a Reply
0
0
Linda Smithe
Jan 14 2011
Guest
587 Thumbs Up

LT Glossary

Bicycle Network: Coordinate speed limit miles per hour with LT Walkable Streets and LT Alternative Transportation. At least in our area 25 MPH is as low as speed limits go unless at a school zone, prefer the target speed of 25 MPH for residential and target speed of 30 MPH for commercial or mixed use.

Post a Reply
0
0
Linda Smithe
Jan 14 2011
Guest
587 Thumbs Up

LT Appendix 2

'The figures above may be used to determine occupancy for the following Credits: ' This is obvious, the following credits all need to be redefined to the new rating system. Example: There is no longer an SSc 4.2 it will be a LT something.
Please don't define Gross Square footageSum of the floor areas of the spaces within the building including basements, mezzanine and intermediate-floored tiers, and penthouses with headroom height of 7.5 ft or greater. It is measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating buildings, but excluding covered walkways, open roofed-over areas, porches and similar spaces, pipe trenches, exterior terraces or steps, chimneys, roof overhangs, and similar features. in a text. Move definition to glossary.

Post a Reply
0
0
Linda Smithe
Jan 14 2011
Guest
587 Thumbs Up

LT Bicycle Network, Storage and Changing Rooms

Under Bicycle Network: Define "all-weather route".
Also, "....designated for completion within the fiscal year that the constructing organization finalizes plans." Consider making this 2 years to be consistent with LT Reduced Automobile Dependence, Option 1 and LT Alternative Transportation, Path 1.
Under Bicycle storage, Case 1: Define "enclosed".

Post a Reply
0
0
Linda Smithe
Jan 14 2011
Guest
587 Thumbs Up

IP Integrated Process

Under Concept Design Integrated Workshop: This indicates ‘at least 4 of the following skill sets..’.Which seems fair. Consider adding Landscape Architect, and CommissioningThe process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. Agent to the list. Clarify, does MEP only count once, or do the electrical engineer count and the plumbing engineer, and the Mechanical Engineer count if they are separate entities?
Under Construction & Operations Trades and Building Operations Team Training: Consider the 'at least four of the following skill sets..." like above. Consider adding Finishing Contractor- Painter. Clarify Building Envelope. Do you want the exterior painter or the waterproofing contractor?

Post a Reply
0
0
Nicolas Galiotto Owner BuildGreen.dk
Jan 14 2011
Guest
521 Thumbs Up

LEED outside the US

Hi all,

I've been working mainly on LEED projects outside the US (AUS+DK). I'm afraid I have to say we have met numerous problems not directly connected to the level of Energy and Environmental Design quality requirement but related to the LEED national approach.

Numerous future sustainable building ratings will occur outside the US, and if the USGBC does not take that soon into consideration, the owners, builders and consultants will start (or continue) using other rating systems.

More and more clients ask us which sustainable building rating system should they go for. And it seems, that LEED is the only one that has not started to work more locally.

LEED needs to be adapted for each country / region and not just through regional priorities. I advise acutely the USGBC to work more closely with the other national GBC or local partners.

1
2
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jan 14 2011 LEEDuser Moderator

Nicolas, you should check out the "LEED International" effort that USGBC is actively engaged in. There is more info on that on their homepage. There might be a way to get involved in supporting it, too.

2
2
0
Nicolas Galiotto Owner, BuildGreen.dk Jan 14 2011 Guest 521 Thumbs Up

Thanks for your response Tristan. I definitely will.
Kr.
Nicolas

Post a Reply
0
0
Jeremy Kuhre Sustainable Buildings & Operations Manager Sustainable Solutions Corporation
Jan 12 2011
Guest
1081 Thumbs Up

Minimum Energy Performance

Am I to understand correctly that energy reduction will now be based on not only site energy (by cost), but also the source EUI? It seems that source EUI is based almost entirely on what geographic region the project is located in (i.e. energy mix from eGrid). I understand the desire to pull in this important factor of energy efficiency, but it raises a whole slew of issues:
1. This is more a Location and Linkages credit since it is based on geographic location of project. Even then, most LL credits can be earned by moving a project across town, but to make a significant change in primary EUI, would mean a move across the state or even nation.
2. This isn't something the project team really has control over.
3. The difference between the source and site energy has nothing to do with the efficiency of the building.

Any thoughts?so

Post a Reply
0
0
Tom Lent Policy Director Healthy Building Network
Jan 10 2011
Guest
2144 Thumbs Up

MR Materials Credits (recycled/reuse/regional/biobased)

This comment applies to issues across several of the MR Materials Credits (recycled content, materials reuse, regional materials and biobasedGenerally, classification of products and materials derived from plant and animal sources as opposed to minerals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a program to promote the use of emerging biobased products that defines them more narrowly, to exclude products that already have established markets, such as food, animal feed, and lumber. materials)

COMBINE THE CREDITS: This set of credits are just calling out to be consolidated into one combined credit where materials meeting any of these attributes may be added cumulatively toward the potential points. Too often these credits are bypassed entirely because getting the last couple of percentage points to reach a threshold is too hard. Or efforts stop short once the threshold is reached since there is no incentive to continue beyond the threshold except to use up a valuable innovation credits and even then only if the team can come up with enough materials to reach a new threshold. Pooling these credits together would encourage teams to maximize the amount of materials in each attribute category instead of just shooting for thresholds.

The new LEED for Healthcare 2009 has already demonstrated how this could work with a credit structure that has gone through substantive public comment (see MR Credit 3: Sustainably Sourced Materials and Products at http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8257http://www.usgbc.org/S... page 57). In brief the concept is to add together the value of materials meeting any of the requirements (reused, recycled, regional, and certified woodWood from a source that has been determined, through a certification process, to meet stated ecological and other criteria. There are numerous forest certification programs in general use based on several standards, but only the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, which include requirements that the wood be tracked through its chain-of-custody, can be used to qualify wood for a point in the LEED Rating System. (see comments below about biobased/rapidly renewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less).)), determine the combined percentage of the whole and give a point for each 10% of the total material bill. For full alignment with LEED this would be a 7 point credit, post industrial recycled content would get half credit and reuse would get double credit.

Most of these attributes are exclusive (only one attribute should apply – no double dipping). Regional materials may be the exception.

DON’T DROP STRUCTURAL: I understand the dilemmas that certain structural materials – particularly steel and to a lesser extent concrete - raise with their high volume and growing levels of standard practice recycled content. Use of structural materials can quickly consume the credits with standard practice materials and hence give credits too easily and eliminate pressure to address other product categories. There are other ways, however, to address these challenges without dropping all incentive for improving structural material performance. Again LEED for Healthcare addressed this (see above reference) by setting limits on the concrete and steel structural elements applicable to the credit and mandating a minimum percentage of other products: “If concrete or steel structural elements are applied toward this credit, the project must include at least two other materials or products from CSI MasterFormat Divisions (other than 03 and 05) to attain the first point. Of the total recycled content, no more than 75% may be steel or concrete.”

BIOBASED – CERTIFIED LEGAL HARVEST WOOD PREREQUISITE: Providing a credit for using 10% non structural wood in a project, is too easy for a leadership standard. I suggest dropping this credit and instead adding a prerequisite that all wood used in the project have a certification that it is legally harvested. For all the controversy about the benchmarking proposals in the forestry debate, this is one that I expect all sides should be able to agree upon.

BIOBASED – REQUIRE CERTIFICATION FOR RAPIDLY RENEWABLES: Rapidly renewable products can have serious health and sustainability problems depending upon how they are harvested. Good certification program exist that should be required for agricultural/rapidly renewable products just as they are for forest products.

1
4
0
Brett Beckemeyer AIA, LEED-AP, BD&C, Fox Architects Jan 12 2011 Guest 317 Thumbs Up

Just wanted to chime in here and second what Tom said here, especially combining the credits and keeping the structural in the MR credits. Maybe combining the credits is something that has to be pushed to the next set of revisions, but please find a fair way to keep some of the structural material in the MR credits.

2
4
0
Linda Smithe Jan 14 2011 Guest 587 Thumbs Up

I agree with above as well.
I would like to add I do not suggest a prerequisite for recycled material.
From the on line webinar it was discussed that the Recycled Content points are always being achieved, the market has transformed itself which is good. So just raise the percentage to continue the market transformation.

The MRc 4, 5, 6, 7, points are very time consuming (expensive) for contractors to document and some teams think they are not worth the effort. By making it a prerequisite you force them to do the documentation for what was in the past very few points and again if it is understood almost every project gets this because of market transformation, why are you making the contractors document it?

Also changing the way you document certain materials structural vs non structural just adds to complexity and confusion. Keep it consistent. Where would you put structural door frames? Is the block wall a structural shear wall or load bearing wall or just a fire proof partition? I believe, drywallon the underside of trusses adds shear stability.

3
4
0
Linda Smithe Jan 14 2011 Guest 587 Thumbs Up

I agree with above as well.
I would like to add I do not suggest a prerequisite for recycled material.
From the on line webinar it was discussed that the Recycled Content points are always being achieved, the market has transformed itself which is good. So just raise the percentage to continue the market transformation.

The MRc 4, 5, 6, 7, points are very time consuming (expensive) for contractors to document and some teams think they are not worth the effort. By making it a prerequisite you force them to do the documentation for what was in the past very few points and again if it is understood almost every project gets this because of market transformation, why are you making the contractors document it?

Also changing the way you document certain materials structural vs non structural just adds to complexity and confusion. Keep it consistent. Where would you put structural door frames? Is the block wall a structural shear wall or load bearing wall or just a fire proof partition? I believe, drywallon the underside of trusses adds shear stability.

4
4
0
Laura D'Ardenne Sustainability Consultant, PCL Construction Services, Inc Jan 19 2011 LEEDuser Member 59 Thumbs Up

I also agree with what Tom Lent has posted above.

Combining Credits – If the materials credits are combined then teams would pursue materials with the best attributes instead of what they need to get to a certain percentage and not investigate alternate materials further.

Keep Structural Elements – Materials credits should keep some portion of structural material that can count toward the overall percentage. You could consider limiting the amount of structural materials that can count toward the overall percentage rather than eliminating them altogether. For some projects in very remote or island type settings, structural materials may be the only way to achieve regional materials for example. I also agree with Linda Smithe’s comment that it may become very difficult to delineate what materials are structural vs. non-structural and increase the complexity of documentation.

Prerequisite – The idea of a prerequisite is good but if it remains just for recycled materials this may actually be difficult for some projects to achieve depending on their geographic location, what materials are readily available, and what the structure and interior consist of.

Post a Reply
0
0
Amy Balderrama Project Manager SSRCx, LLC
Jan 06 2011
Guest
135 Thumbs Up

Avkash Patel LED EB O&M

How can I contact Avkash Patel who was willing to share her review comments?

Post a Reply
0
0
Brett Beckemeyer AIA, LEED-AP, BD&C Fox Architects
Jan 06 2011
Guest
317 Thumbs Up

Site Selection Options

This is more of a structural comment. It is a little confusing that there are two options listed, but option 2 requires option 1 to be met. I'm assuming this would be 2 credits and option 1 would be one credit? Why wouldn't this just be structured to have 2 credits available, one for the first set of requirements and the second for meeting all?

Post a Reply
0
0
aaron smith Founder and President MobiuSmith Sustainability Consulting
Dec 21 2010
Guest
292 Thumbs Up

IEQ Prerequisite 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control

IEQ Prerequisite 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETSEnvironmental tobacco smoke (ETS), or secondhand smoke, consists of airborne particles emitted from the burning end of cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, and is exhaled by smokers. These particles contain about 4,000 compounds, up to 50 of which are known to cause cancer.) Control - Prevent or minimize exposure of building occupants, indoor surfaces and ventilation air
distribution systems to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Weather-strip all doors in the residential units leading to common hallways to minimize air leakage into the hallway.

Demonstrate acceptable sealing of residential units by a blower door testA blower door test gives an overall value for airtightness of a space, and can help identify air leaks. The testing unit consists of a calibrated fan that is sealed onto the unit entrance. The fan creates a continuous flow of pressure into the unit (or out of the unit when using theatrical fog to locate leaks). Devices detect the rate of pressure retention and loss due to possible air leaks in the construction. conducted in accordance with ANSI/ASTMVoluntary standards development organization which creates source technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services-E779-03, Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage RateThe speed at which an appliance loses refrigerant, measured between refrigerant charges or over 12 months, whichever is shorter. The leakage rate is expressed in terms of the percentage of the appliance's full charge that would be lost over a 12-month period if the rate stabilized. (EPA Clean Air Act, Title VI, Rule 608). By Fan Pressurization. Use the progressive sampling methodology defined in Chapter 4 (Compliance Through Quality Construction) of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California's 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards. Residential units must demonstrate less than 1.25 square inches leakage area per 100 square feet of enclosure area (i.e., sum of all wall, ceiling and floor areas).

One intent of this credit is to weather-strip doors, to prevent cross-contamination to non-smoking units. While there are 2 options for room assembly requirement and testing, there are no requirements for the standard that door gasketing and weather-strip must meet - this will make it difficult for architects to specify the correct gasketing and insure that the room assembly tests to the standard.

I propose to USGBC that we use perimeter gaskets and seals that have been tested in accordance with UL 1784-2001 Air Leakage Tests of Door Assemblies, and meet the performance criteria for allowable air
leakage as specified in NFPA 105-99 Installation of Smoke Control Door Assemblies. Gaskets and seals meeting these standards should meet the intent of IEQp2.
This standard may benefit IEQc5 as well!

Post a Reply
0
0
Josh Jacobs Technical Information & Public Affairs Manager UL Environment
Dec 16 2010
Guest
6893 Thumbs Up

LEED Update to EQc4.0

As mentioned above in November the USGBC began a public comment period on an updated version of the LEED Rating system and EQc4.0 is updated within it.

According to the USGBC, it is expected that this comment period will lead to substantial changes and improvements to the proposed draft credit revisions. As someone who works with LEED on an ongoing basis you want it to not only represent the best in sustainable building, but also be understandable and easily implemented.

Unfortunately there are some problems with the draft credit language for IEQ Credit 4.0 (and therefore the above Pilot Credit) and if not fixed they could have a negative effect on the indoor environment in these high-performance green buildings. These issues include:

• The proposed low-emissions credit fails to make product emissions requirements more stringent. They still only look at 35 individual chemicals and then only certain products do that many chemicals. Some product types look at the total chemicals emitting from a product and others don't. Yet there are 10,000 individual chemicals that can come off man-made products. Only 10 of the top 100 that are most commonly seen coming off of products are in the 35 individual limits. This is not protective enough for a sustainable building.

• At a time when pollutant source control is desperately needed to protect human health, the proposed credit introduces a layer of complexity that will likely discourage project teams from pursuing it. Instead of simply telling you what standard a product should follow it is asking you to do complex calculations. We have been told by numerous LEED professionals that due to this complexity they are likely to skip this point altogether.

• Differing product emissions requirements within the proposed credit mean that LEED Certified buildings in North America could have worse indoor air quality than those constructed outside of North America. There are different standards allowed for buildings outside North America - standards that look at hundreds of individual chemicals for many products, yet within North America the limit is only 35 individual chemicals.

• Poorly defined and inconsistent product emissions criteria and test methods within the proposed IEQc4 mean that some qualifying products could emit higher levels of chemicals than others, posing a significant exposure risk. Different products are held to different chemical emission criteria - this would be like having different chain of custody rules for wood used on the floor and wood used on the wall. All products in our indoor environment should have to meet the same chemical emission criteria.

• A lack of direction, appropriate reference methods, and verification requirements in IEQc4 will lead to confusion, misapplication, and abuse of the credit, which will have a detrimental effect on indoor air quality. Some of the current reference methods have 6 different pathways to show compliance. These different pathways will likely lead to completely different outcomes – leaving the system easy to manipulate, as manufacturers can simply pick the path that shows their product is low-emitting when in actuality it may not be.

All comments must be submitted to the USGBC by January 14th!

Please help protect the health of LEED building occupants by submitting your comments today. For more information on the proposed language, sample comment language and instructions on how to submit comments to the USGBC, please visit www.greenguard.org/pledge

Thank you again for your commitment to good indoor air quality in green buildings .

1
6
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 16 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Josh, what is your suggestion on how the credit should be written?

I noticed you're with Greenguard, which would be directly impacted by the proposed revisions. We appreciate it when people on our forum disclose connections like this when posting. It will help us  focus on the principles of your suggestions rather than be concerned about potential biases. Can you comment on how this affects Greenguard and your thoughts on that?

2
6
0
Josh Jacobs Technical Information & Public Affairs Manager, UL Environment Dec 16 2010 Guest 6893 Thumbs Up

Sorry - thought my title came through with my name. I am Technical Information & Public Affairs Manager with GREENGUARD Environmental Institute. Actually we are working on our full comments right now, but we have posted some initial comments that people can look at on our website.

Also, as currently written GREENGUARD Children & Schools would still qualify any product certified to it to comply with the credit - so our concern is not about whether GREENGUARD will be impacted or not.

We are very concerned with the impact that the credit could have on sustainably certified building . This credit will get used even less then it does now; it gives different criteria to different products (under the same credit) and it opens up the possibility that people could be exposed to more chemicals - which shouldn't happen in any circumstance, but especially not in a sustainably certified building.

3
6
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 16 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Thanks for the additional background. You can edit your profile with a title and company so that that info appears, under "my account" in the top right of the screen.

4
6
0
Josh Jacobs Technical Information & Public Affairs Manager, UL Environment Dec 16 2010 Guest 6893 Thumbs Up

Thanks Tristan - as soon as we have our suggested credit language I will post here.

5
6
0
Randy Carter Manager, Global Codes & Approvals, Steelcase Inc. Dec 16 2010 LEEDuser Expert 1224 Thumbs Up

I am writing this from Beijing, where I am one of two U.S. advisors to a government research team developing a low-emitting furniture standard and certification program. Therefore I unfortunately have little time to respond in detail just yet.

The technical issues raised in Josh's comments are complex, and include some valid concerns worthy of legitimate debate. However, these comments also reiterate and expand on the inflammatory and inaccurate claims available at www.greenguard.org/pledge that may unnecessarily instill fear and confusion.

These claims include:

“The proposed IEQc4 fails to make product emissions requirements more stringent.” And “…the proposed changes—if accepted—could result in the creation of unhealthy interiors in all LEED Certified buildings, including schools.” And “Rather than raising the bar on indoor air quality and requiring rigorous, comprehensive chemical emissions limits, the proposed IEQc4 encourages adherence to weak product emissions criteria and insufficient test methods. This is alarming, given that the intent of IEQc4 is to safeguard against poor indoor environmental quality. Moreover, the proposed revisions to IEQc4 all but ignore the serious concerns with indoor air quality that were raised in the April 2010 report, LEED Certification: Where Energy Efficiency Collides with Human Health." And now ”...manufacturers can simply pick the path that shows their product is low-emitting when in actuality it may not be."

These claims are categorically false.

The proposed IEQc4 credit significantly strengthens the USGBC requirements for indoor environmental quality. Notably, it adds VOCA volatile organic compound (VOC) is a carbon compound that vaporizes (becomes a gas) at normal room temperatures. VOCs contribute to air pollution directly and through atmospheric photochemical reactions (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) to produce secondary air pollutants, principally ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate. emissions requirements from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to paints, coatings, adhesives, and sealantsA sealant has adhesive properties and is formulated primarily to fill, seal, or waterproof gaps or joints between 2 surfaces. Sealants include sealant primers and caulks. (SCAQMD Rule 1168. )Sealants are used on wood, fabric, paper, corrugated paperboard, plastic foam and other materials with tiny openings, often microscopic, that may absorb or discharge gas or fluid. where only VOC content was previously addressed. It expands the scope to address more VOC sources within a building (thermal and acoustic insulation, all individual furniture items, all layers of ceilings, floors, and walls, and built-in cabinetry). Previously ceilings were not addressed in all rating systems and emissions from insulation, individual furniture items, and built-in cabinetry were not addressed at all. It adds CDPH Chronic Reference Exposure Level (CREL) based requirements for furniture. If you are not aware, CDPH requirements include one of the toughest formaldehyde1. Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring VOC found in small amounts in animals and plants but is carcinogenic and an irritant to most people when present in high concentrations, causing headaches, dizziness, mental impairment, and other symptoms. When present in the air at levels above 0.1 ppm, it can cause watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, and throat; nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; skin rashes; and asthmatic and allergic reactions. 2. A known carcinogen with no known safe exposure level. Formaldehyde occurs naturally, but appears in unnaturally high concentra­tions in many buildings because it is an ingredient in binders used in many building materials and furnishings. emissions criteria in the world.

Continued legitimate debate about the credit content is vital to this process. The good news here is that the proposed credit is stimulating this debate, even if some participants may be motivated in part by keeping their proprietary programs written into the credit language. I encourage others, especially members of the USGBC IEQ TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. and the USGBC IEQ working group who participated in the 1.5 year effort to draft the proposed credit, to participate in this discussion.

Josh has posted his comments on two forums; this one focused on all LEED 2012 proposed revisions, and the one focused on Pilot Credit 21 Low-Emitting Interiors. I will post my initial response on both, but I suggest we shift the detailed commentary to the Pilot Credit 21 page, as it focuses specifically on the credit under discussion.

I plan to post additional responses to the specific concerns as I can make time available while traveling. A detailed FAQ document that addresses many of these issues is available on the LEEDuser.com pilot credit 21 page, or at this link: http://www.leeduser.com/system/files/sites/default/files/EQc4-PC21_FAQ_3....

These issues are not simple nor easy. Good people are struggling with these all over the world, and there is certainly room for improvement in the proposed credit. I am confident that this debate will help us to make the LEED program even better.

6
6
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 17 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Further discussion of this credit will be limited to the PIlot Credit 21 forum on LEEDuser. Please read and discuss there.

Post a Reply
0
0
Doug Hampton Cx Agent Alvine Engineering
Dec 13 2010
Guest
241 Thumbs Up

Cx

Your analysis of the draft is great, but few comments on Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included.. There are many major changes to the CxCommissioning: the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. requirements. These changes will greatly affect the commissioningThe process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. process, scope, schedule, and cost. Has there been any response on the Cx portion, and if so where are they located. Thanks.

1
12
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 13 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Doug, I would love to see someone like yourself who really knows the subject to expound on what the key changes are, and what you think of them. Any takers?

2
12
0
Doug Hampton Cx Agent, Alvine Engineering Dec 22 2010 Guest 241 Thumbs Up

Tristan, how would I go about uploading my firms review comments? Also, for future reference, it would probably be easier to review and make comments if the document was arranged in an outline format with numbers and letters. Thanks for your time.

3
12
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Doug, you can post your comments right here on the forum in any organizational form you prefer.

I'm not totally sure I understand your comment about the outline format, sotTo be clear—what's being commented on are USGBC's new drafts of LEED, not my own commentary posted on the top of this section. Those drafts are quite well organized in the way you note.

This forum is simply organized by threads that people post—so it's up to them.

4
12
0
Doug Hampton Cx Agent, Alvine Engineering Dec 22 2010 Guest 241 Thumbs Up

Format:
A.
1.
a.
B. 1
a.
b.
2.
etc.
That way it would be easier to comment on a single word or sentence.
The copy of the BD&C Redline that I downloaded was sectioned, but no numbers or letters. I will paste my comments in the next post. Thanks for your quick reply.

5
12
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

I see. That's up to USGBC—seems like a good public comment fo them!. LEEDuser is an independent publication. We are trying to provide a forum to foster dialogue about and improvement of LEED.

6
12
0
Doug Hampton Cx Agent, Alvine Engineering Dec 22 2010 Guest 241 Thumbs Up

It appears as if the site removed the spaces between the letters and number of the format I suggested. Without proper spacing, number, ittalics, etc, it will be almost impossible to read my comments.

So where do I submit my concerns for the commissioningThe process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. sections? I have them in word form, and they are somewhat specific. I can certainly put them here in a generic statement, if necessary. The USGBC site says that there is an online comment form, that I can not find. If you could direct me to that document, that would be great. Thanks.

7
12
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

I'd be delghted if you can share your comments in general form here. Here is a link to USGBC"s page, but you might not like the format they provide any better.

8
12
0
Doug Hampton Cx Agent, Alvine Engineering Dec 22 2010 Guest 241 Thumbs Up

Our concerns are many, but I will list the major ones. There are many new items added to the "Commissioned Systems": Building envelope, testing of air flows, Roofing materials and installation, water systems including irrigation. This will add to the scope of the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements., and greatly increase cost for an owner, but my concern is who is intended to perform these test and verifications? The CxACommissioning authority: the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements. typically will witness the tests and do the paper work. The addition of the data center sections in the sections need definition. The NEC defines a data center. In this section a "data center" is defined as a space of 20 watts/square foot or more. Is this active or passive? this could be any telecom room. This is a very short summary, considering the review items filled three pages, but in conclusion, our concerns are two fold. Since cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. is a prerequisite, the customer will now be paying triple the cost. Are CxA firms expected to absorb all of these new responsibilities? Also, I still can not find the "Online comment form" required by usgbc. See below.

Guidelines for submitting comments:

•Comments are only accepted via the "online comment form."
•Each respondent may submit only one set of comments on any individual credit.
•Comments may not be edited once submitted.
•Representatives of USGBC member and non-member organizations are encouraged to submit comments collectively.

9
12
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Doug, if you scroll down just below the text you pasted ("Guidelines") you'll see three buttons to the lower right—"Expand." Click on these and proceed.

10
12
0
Erik Dyrr Director, Sustainable Buildings and Operations, KEMA Jan 12 2011 Guest 500 Thumbs Up

Doug- I agree that the new requirements will significantly effect the cost of commissioningThe process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements.. Given that the general population of owners do not understand Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included. today, the price tagLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. on CxCommissioning: the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. will blow them away. Specifically the requirements for, 1.) A water vapor transmission analysis of all exterior envelope types used in the building, and 2.) Confirm building envelope materials and their installation are in compliance with the contract documents.

Not only do these activities increase cost, in labor, they present a much greater level of liability to the CxAThe commissioning authority (CxA) is the individual designated to organize, lead, and review the completion of commissioning process activities. The CxA facilitates communication among the owner, designer, and contractor to ensure that complex systems are installed and function in accordance with the owner's project requirements.. Higher liability=higher cost. Given these cost implications, I don't believe Cx can be considered cost effective for most projects.

I also agree that many Cx firms do not have the expertise to perform envelope testing. But we too have to learn and take the next step.

11
12
0
Doug Hampton Cx Agent, Alvine Engineering Jan 17 2011 Guest 241 Thumbs Up

Erik, thank you for reviewing my comments and posting a response. Our firm is proactive and will meet the requirements. That being said, roles and responsibilities are very important when trying to train and hire staff to meet the requirments. The more information the better. Tristan, how/when should I expect to hear the committies response to my questions? Thanks.

12
12
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Jan 17 2011 LEEDuser Moderator

Doug, regarding a response to your comments, I don't think specific  comments necessarily receive a response from the technical committees. Over 3,000 public comments are expected in all for this round. Also, I need to reiterate that our organization is not a part of the USGBC and we are simply facilitating this conversaton with USGBC's cooperation.

Post a Reply
0
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser BuildingGreen, Inc.
Dec 07 2010
LEEDuser Moderator

Public comment period extended to Jan. 11, 2011

I just got word that the comment period has been extended! Please post your comments on the new draft of LEED here, or on USGBC"s form.

1
3
0
Randy Carter Manager, Global Codes & Approvals, Steelcase Inc. Dec 07 2010 LEEDuser Expert 1224 Thumbs Up

I think the deadline is January 14, 2011, at least according to a Dec. 3rd note sent to the corresponding committees for the TAGs. If anyone confirms differently please post a response. Thanks.

2
3
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 07 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

You're right, it's 1/14. I guess 1/11/11 just looked too exciting.

3
3
0
Chrissy Macken Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4 , U.S. Green Building Council Dec 07 2010 LEEDuser Member 1875 Thumbs Up

Yes, Randy you are correct - it is January 14th, 2011 for the close of 1st public comment. I accidently typed the incorrect date to Tristan for this forum.

Post a Reply
0
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP Integrated Architecture
Nov 29 2010
LEEDuser Expert
23759 Thumbs Up

sacred cows

Are there any portions of LEED not open for comment? In another thead I got the impression that LEED tries to align with other systems. And that desire for alignment might trump public comment. I'd prefer to make comments relating to the LEED system when LEED is open for public comments. Not having to chase after other rating systems and try to change those to have an affect on LEED. The extreme example is, if someone has a better way for energy modeling buildings (either a tweak or whole scale change) than ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G. will their public comment be giving the time of day? Or be dismissed with a "not enough information is known" comment?

1
5
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 29 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Bill, I believe that the entire LEED rating system posted on the USGBC site is open for comment. Not just the "redlined" changes.

Alignment across LEED rating systems (NC, NC, EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems., etc.) means that there is an overarching theme of making similar credits have similar or the same requirements, as appropriate. It doesn't mean that something in NC isn't up for comment because it's already set in stone in Schools. Not sure if that was your question....

2
5
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Nov 30 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

I was not referring to alignment across LEED rating systems. But alignment between non-LEED systems
- light pollution credit is aligned with the Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) draft by the IES.
- energy saving credit is aligned with ASHRAE 90.1.
- low VOCA volatile organic compound (VOC) is a carbon compound that vaporizes (becomes a gas) at normal room temperatures. VOCs contribute to air pollution directly and through atmospheric photochemical reactions (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides and carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) to produce secondary air pollutants, principally ozone and peroxyacetyl nitrate. credit is aligned with Rule 1113 by SCAQMDSouth Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the air pollution control agency that regulates stationary air pollution sources in parts of southern California, including Orange County and most of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside County..
- water saving credit is aligned with EPAct 1992.
- acoustic performance is aligned with ANSI S12.60.
- thermal comfort is aligned with ASHRAE Standard 55.
- green power is aligned with Green-eGreen-e is a program established by the Center for Resource Solutions to both promote green electricity products and provide consumers with a rigorous and nationally recognized method to identify those products..
- fuel efficient vehicles are aligned with the ACEEE rating guide.
- certified woodWood from a source that has been determined, through a certification process, to meet stated ecological and other criteria. There are numerous forest certification programs in general use based on several standards, but only the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, which include requirements that the wood be tracked through its chain-of-custody, can be used to qualify wood for a point in the LEED Rating System. is aligned with FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts. practices.

If someone has an idea to modify or change one of these items would they have a chance? What level of supporting information is expected for its consideration? We are limited to only non-formated text in our submittals. Are the TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. members from some of these other organizations and we'd have to convince them not to use their own idea in favor of ours?

I don't have a problem using existing systems from other organizations if they work. But if I'm convinced that it doesn't work and want to offer an alternative solution I'd like to know the time I put into the public comment won't be wasted.

3
5
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 30 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

I see what you mean. Very good question.

I am curious to hear a USGBC answer to this, but my understanding is that USGBC is not beholden to any of these groups to use their standards. For example USGBC has chosen to refer to FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts., but now there is a possible move away from that being exclusive, toward a benchmark system. In this example, a LEED public comment couldn't affect change to FSC's standards, but it could affect how LEED refers to FSC.

Tangentially related to this, USGBC is also developing a "standard for standards" that it references in LEED.

4
5
0
Chrissy Macken Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4 , U.S. Green Building Council Dec 03 2010 LEEDuser Member 1875 Thumbs Up

Hi Bill and Tristan -

Every credit and prerequisite that is new or has been modified in some way (including deletion) is open for comment. All aspects of those credits are open for comment, including the referenced standards. We are trying to evolve LEED in a way that moves toward more absolute performance metrics wherever possible - giving project teams the performance goal to reach without dictating how projects get there. If you have information that can show us additional standards that will move the LEED requirements toward more absolute performance metrics, we would encourage you to proivde us with that information. Please suggest it though public comment.

5
5
0
Susann Geithner CEO, Geithner Consulting Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Member 13885 Thumbs Up

I haven't read the new draft yet, but what Bill was mentioning above does sound a lot like the USGBC finally does make their requirements more independent from third party systems.
I work a lot on no US based projects and I'm all for this kind of change. Because third party ratings systems, which are for the most part US-systems, put a big burden on non US projects. So farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters). we had to use US products even though regional products would meet the intent of the credit also, but do not have the US label. Another example is the green-eGreen-e is a program established by the Center for Resource Solutions to both promote green electricity products and provide consumers with a rigorous and nationally recognized method to identify those products. power. There are barely any green power provider in Europe with this US-based label, but indisputable much more green power production in Europe than there are in the US. So why shouldn't I be able to take credit for it. I know I could always try to use special circumstances or CIRs to work around it, but this should be the exception not the rule. With a largely growing market for LEED outside the US and the need of international companies to rate and compare their buildings across the world this is overdue and I'm all for it.
In regards to the FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts. certified woodWood from a source that has been determined, through a certification process, to meet stated ecological and other criteria. There are numerous forest certification programs in general use based on several standards, but only the Forest Stewardship Council's standards, which include requirements that the wood be tracked through its chain-of-custody, can be used to qualify wood for a point in the LEED Rating System. same thing, there are other ratings out where. Why should the USGBC favor one over the other, if it can prove to be as good as FSC.

Post a Reply
0
0
Mark Thompson
Nov 23 2010
Guest
111 Thumbs Up

ADC is not recycling - Support the change

The stated intent of MR: Construction and Demolition Waste Management is: "To divert constuction, renovation and demolition debris from disposal in landfills and incinerators and recover recyclable and reusable materials." This is an important goal, it should absolutely be supported, but it needs to have integrity by eliminating the Altrnative Daily Cover loop-hole.

Clever landfill operators have manipulated the regulations to exploit the current acceptance of ADCAlternative daily covers are material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Generally these materials must be processed so they do not allow gaps in the exposed landfill face. as a recycled product. Since ADC is essentially any construction waste that won't blow away, a landfill operator can bury clean wood, metal, and aggregate and claim that it has been recycled. The effect is that a landfill can claim a 90%+ recycling rate even though nearly 100% of the waste is landfilled. Meanwhile, the local recycling company that pays employees to hand-sort construction waste into recyclable groups that do NOT go to a landfill has a lower recycling rate plus the additional overhead of the sorting operations.

A landfill should not be able to claim a high recycling rate when 100% of the material ultimately ends up buried in a landfill with the rest of our trash. I completely support the new verbage: "ADC (Alternative Daily CoverMaterial other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Generally these materials must be processed so they do not allow gaps in the exposed landfill face.) does not qualify as material diverted from disposal." This will require waste haulers and recyclers to change their practices, and that is exactly what LEED should be doing. Don't let the landfills exploit the ADC loophole again: keep this language.

1
4
0
Chrissy Macken Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4 , U.S. Green Building Council Nov 24 2010 LEEDuser Member 1875 Thumbs Up

Mark -

Thank you for your comment. Your comment reflects the intent the MR TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. had when drafting the updated langauge, which was aimed at changing the practices of this process.

We look forward to more of your comments!

2
4
0
Michelle Reott LEED AP® BD+C, ID+C, O+M, Managing Principal, Earthly Ideas LLC, a LEED® Proven Provider™ Jan 14 2011 LEEDuser Expert 13243 Thumbs Up

I wholehearted support this change to the MRc2!

I am so glad the TAGLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system. recognized that this was an issue and took steps to address it in the current draft. I especially liked hearing in the MR webinar the reasons the TAG felt were important for this change – specifically that ADCAlternative daily covers are material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Generally these materials must be processed so they do not allow gaps in the exposed landfill face. was not achieving the holistic goals of diverting materials from the landfill and harvesting those materials to avoid extraction of new materials.

3
4
0
Eric Wentland Greenway Recycling, LLC Mar 16 2011 Guest 92 Thumbs Up

It is unfortunate that I am seeing this too late in the game to make a comment that USGBC will be able to factor in to their decision. Also, I am sorry that I was unable to get to all of you earlier as well. First point of information about me, a disclaimer if you will. I work for a MRF (Material Recovery Facility) in Portland, Oregon. In theory, we should be your partners in recovery and recycling, we are an integral part of the process of creating new commodities out of your waste stream. Keep in mind, we don't generate the waste, we are the processor who could benefit greatly by keeping every pound possible out of the landfill. We make our money by NOT taking stuff to the landfill.

ADCAlternative daily covers are material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Generally these materials must be processed so they do not allow gaps in the exposed landfill face., since it is the subject of this post, is something we recover here. ADC is also created in many legitimate recycling facilities, from dozens of different sources, so it is distressing to have it rejected out of hand because of the anecdotal reference to a few unscrupulous landfill operators in unnamed jurisdictions. At our facility, ADC is created from the fines left at the bottom of the dumpster, the loose material that is primarily small bits of concrete, drywall pieces, hard plastic and dust less than an inch in size. In Oregon, as in many other states, the ADC is regulated and authorized for use as cover by the State Department of Environmental Quality. They have recognized that since the EPA requires a minimum of 6 inches of cover every night for vector and odor control, and the cover previously used was clean soil, this represents a win-win for everybody.

I am more than happy to provide samples of the material that we sift out of the waste stream. Yes, this would likely go to the landfill anyway but it would go as general garbage, mixed with other non-recoverables and hence have no beneficial use. Perhaps a better methodology would be to clearly define ADC to prevent abuse of the ruling. By the way, one of the chief impediments to recycling or diverting many of the materials that come through this facility is how inexpensive those materials are on the front end. If we had a true life cycle cost analysis on the variety of materials that go into construction and later end up in the dump, perhaps there would be more value at the back end.

Last, certainly not least, is the issue of markets for the material that comes out of C&D. Without a viable market that is both accessible and cost effective, nobody in the chain of possession will have any reason or desire to make this all happen. An example of this is gypsum wall board. When it comes from demolition, it is often contaminated with paint or wallpaper. Yes, it is theoretically recoverable, however, nobody in our area has a facility or process that will recycle or reclaim this material because there are so few markets and it is expensive to reclaim. The only alternative is landfilling. When it is scraps from new construction, there is one possible vendor who will recover this material and the cost to do it is higher than landfill disposal as well as requiring full dumpster loads delivered 30 miles from the local Metro area. Green and sustainable works when all parties can share in the benefit or be responsible for the burden of the end result.

4
4
0
Jeff Jones Owner, Accountable Recycling Options Jul 13 2011 Guest 353 Thumbs Up

Great comment on ADCAlternative daily covers are material other than earthen material placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Generally these materials must be processed so they do not allow gaps in the exposed landfill face., and I can only applaud MRFs which primary goal is to recycle and to do it transparently. However, please keep in mind the intent of MRc2 is to divert waste from landfills. The waste and recycling industry currently suffers from a creditability issue, simply from too many “recyclers” taking short cuts, and the result have been amazingly high recycling rates of C&D and other material in the past few years. This is simply from the industry becoming more focused on how to create documentation for LEED projects, versus actually improving recycling rates. Here is what I would suggest:
1. Do not permit ADC to be counted as landfill diversion. This will lower many MRF recycling rates by as much as 25% or more.
2. Continue to permit material that is used as a fuel source/fuel pellets for waste-to-energy plants (incinerators pay for this material) and not to permit waste that is being burned up as waste only (incinerators charge for this). Currently, there are too many MRFs including all the material they toss into waste-to-energy plants as recycled material even though it is not pellets, since no one is checking. Some facilities are sending as much as 50% of their waste to incinerators and claiming it as recycled.
3. Develop a third-party verification system of actual recycling rates at MRFs and other recycling facilities. This would result in two things:
a. It would quickly clean up the worst offenders in document fraud. These offenders are also driving the price down so that real deal MRFs cannot effectively compete in a fully transparent means. If 90% of the worst offenders were held accountable, then the real deals would be financially rewarded with increasing market share. I can safely say I am aware of facilities that have actual recycling rates around 10-20%, and are claiming 90% plus on documentation. This simply needs to be addressed in order to make MRc2 more creditable.
b. The actual recycling rates reported of real deal facilities would likely substantially drop by a third party verification system. That is okay since, they would still be much higher than any other company that did not invest in facilities, equipment and labor to recycle C&D material. However, since they are going to have a much higher market share, they will be able to invest in newer technology and focus on stronger backend markets to slowly work their real recycling rates back up. Going from an actual 50% recycling rate back toward 100, is much more in line with the overall mission of USGBC, then just reporting 95% plus rates that are not accurate.
We would submit a Pilot Credit for developing a third-party verification system, but we simply do not have the resources to do this in such short of a time. If anyone has any suggestions, I would love to know what they are.

Post a Reply
0
0
Avkash Patel
Nov 09 2010
Guest
581 Thumbs Up

LEED O+M 2009 vs LEED O+M 2012

Great Analysis of the two rating systems. I am a LEED AP O+M and for my own knowledge I will be analyzing the 2009 LEED O+M system with the proposed 2012 LEED O+M system. If anyone is interested in my findings please feel free to send me an e mail.

1
3
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 09 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Avkash, perhaps we can work together to share your analysis with the whole LEEDuser community. You can reach me at tristan@buildinggreen.com.

2
3
0
Chrissy Macken Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4 , U.S. Green Building Council Nov 10 2010 LEEDuser Member 1875 Thumbs Up

Avkash - I would also like to see the link to your analysis once it's complete.

3
3
0
Avkash Patel Nov 10 2010 Guest 581 Thumbs Up

Dear All,

I am in the process of reviewing the changes (their are tons) to the reference guide and will do my best to have a report out to everyone soon. Beyond the addition of schools, retail, hospitality and data centers which are all new to the reference guide, the USGBC has also decided to increased percentages and cut many of sections out. In order to make my report short and not very lengthy, I will give be giving brief overviews of each section and major changes. I will not go into credit-by-credit analysis, as that would be extensive.
I appreciate everyone patience and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best,

Avkash Patel
LEED AP O+M
Aspiring Sustainability Specialist.

Post a Reply
0
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP Integrated Architecture
Nov 08 2010
LEEDuser Expert
23759 Thumbs Up

Credit points???

It seems like the value of each credit has yet to be determined. I thought there would be some sort of value comparison released with all future versions of LEED, similar to the 2009 version. Does that mean point values will just be slipped in without public comments?

1
3
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Keep in mind there is at least one more public comment period, and possibly more.

I haven't heard USGBC explain this, but my guess was that it was considered a lower priority to assign points at such an early stage, when  credits could still come and go. It seems like something for later in the process, when the credits are set and it's time to haggle over what's worth more.

Also, in the back of my mind I recall hearing that USGBC is developing its own weighting method (which I'm sure will be shared with the public, hopefully for comment). The weighting for LEED 2009 was based on an EPA method.

2
3
0
Chrissy Macken Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4 , U.S. Green Building Council Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Member 1875 Thumbs Up

Each rating system will go through a weightings process similar to LEED 2009. In LEED 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemi-cal and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) categories were used to determine a relative weight of each credit as compared with the others within a given rating system. For the update to LEED, USGBC has developed a number of impact categories more closely aligned with our mission that will inform the point allocation across the rating system. This process will take place between the first and second public comment periods.

3
3
0
Chrissy Macken Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4 , U.S. Green Building Council Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Member 1875 Thumbs Up

This, and many other questions can be answered within our Frequent Asked Questions document, located here: https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=8447

Post a Reply
0
0
Pete Koszulinski Intern Gabriel Environmental Services
Nov 08 2010
Guest
105 Thumbs Up

LEED AP Credit

I think two LEED APs is a bit ridiculous. I currently work for a company that doesn't have a LEED AP on staff yet, and I think requiring two at ~$600 per exam could possibly discourage even getting one LEED AP on staff. It seems like a blatant attempt for the USGBC to increase its numbers. Two would be largely unnecessary in a 10 person firm. Maybe make a second LEED AP an Exemplary PerformanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements. credit?

Unrelated - I absolutely agree with the changes for the bike racks. As an avid cyclist, in a city like Chicago to still have to risk locking your bike to an unboltable street sign is so LEED 2009. Making them a requirement instead of a point was a fantastic idea that promotes everyone's interests as well as properly weighting the credit for bike racks.

1
27
0
Todd Reed Daylight Designer, 7group Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Expert 15269 Thumbs Up

It is not a blatant attempt by the USGBC to increase its numbers, it is the next step in LEED by improving the rating system and moving the requirements to the next level. Remember, it is all about market transformation, once the market has caught up, you push it to the next level.

2
27
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

It's actually 3 people. One AP with relative specialty, + 2 others who can have any AP specialty or be GA's.

So legacies are worthless now? I'm sure that will go over well.

3
27
0
Leticia SooHoo, AIA, LEED AP+ Architect,Principal / Sustainability, AlfaTech Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Member 1029 Thumbs Up

Well, I see requiring LEED AP+ is a step forward. It makes the LEED professional contribution current and valuable to the project. Besides it is a credit and if the team does not have enough LEED APs the project does not have to pursue this credit.

I agree that 3 might be a bit much, perhaps 1 LEED AP+ and 1 LEED AP GA will be more reasonable.

4
27
0
Pete Koszulinski Intern, Gabriel Environmental Services Nov 08 2010 Guest 105 Thumbs Up

@Bill: Ouch

@Todd: I'm not convinced this isn't about increasing dues. I am also not sure the market has caught up. Speaking with people who are outside the green building community tends to not go farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters).. I do appreciate aggressive regulations, but I'm not sure this is the credit to be aggressive with. Daylighting, for one, should be needs more credits/recognition as more and more people are using solar energy to power light bulbs. But yes - pushing innovation is very, very important in this business.

5
27
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

The way I read it, you can satisfy the requirements with as few as two professionals: one LEED AP+ with a relevant specialty and one LEED GA would be compliant. It's a bit ambiguous, though: the word "Additonal" does point to three individuals.

It's unfortunate that USGBC doesn't distinguish itself more clearly from GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC).. In theory, only GBCI collects LEED AP dues, so a change to the LEED standard would be separate from that kind of consideration. However, the distinction between the two organizations is quite muddy. Also, USGBC benefits from CE requirements, as the biggest education provider and the only Education Review Board.

I'm of two minds about the requirement. On the one hand, it's annoying that the credential could just become outdated in this way.

On the other hand, the LEED AP credit was such a gimme that it would be silly to not consider making it more stringent in some way.

Arguably, though, the proposed Integrated Process credit is a more meaningful way to do this.

6
27
0
Karen Joslin principal, Joslin Consulting Nov 08 2010 LEEDuser Member 2452 Thumbs Up

Somehow this is yet another step in devaluing what an experienced LEED AP brings to a project - owners are still so clueless about the experience rather than passing the test. Design firms who have loads of AP's on staff and then assign an entry level designer or intern to actually manage the project are probably to blame for this increased and ridiculous threshold. If we stopped marketing the letters and got around to marketing the experience of the specific individual who will be managing the entire LEED strategy this might not be happening - but that is probably asking way too much.

7
27
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Nov 22 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

Has there been any clarification if you need 2 or 3 people now for this point?

And what are the legal repercussions for invalidating legacy AP's? Wasn't there some sort of promise/contract that AP's would always be able to earn a point towards LEED? Won't this lead to another time consuming lawsuit?

8
27
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Bill, I think it's important to note that USGBC released a first draft of the new LEED—it's not a fait accompli.

My mindset with this draft is to take the kind of things you're hitting on, and submit them as comments to USGBC, namely:

1) The wording is confusing—can you meet the credit requirements with 2 people?

2) Legacy LEED APs are going to feel that the proposed revision unfairly shuts them out. Fallout from this, e.g. lawsuits, could farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters). outweigh any benefit of an effort to make the credit more technically stringent.

USGBC has invited LEEDuser to use this forum as a public comment forum, so I"ll do just that.

As I said above, I'm of two minds about the proposal. In general I like seeing LEED get tougher over time, and IDc2 has been the easiest credit in LEED. On the other hand, I'm not sure it's fair to bounce legacies out like this.

For the legacy LEED APs (or anyone else) who disagrees with this direction, I would love to get beyond the kvetching and hear a good counter-argument. What is the best argument for keeping the credit as-is? Or if you agree that it should be tougher, how would you like to see that happen?

9
27
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Nov 22 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

I think USGBC has created themselves a problem with the original desire to get as many people accredited as possible. Their current proposal is not too bad if they were starting from scratch. But since they have the luggage of their old promises I think the best of a bad situation is not pretty. LEED AP's would be worth a total of 2 points rather than just one.

IPc2.1: 1-point:
The inclusion of any LEED AP as an integral member of the design team.

IPc2.2: 1-point:
The inclusion of a LEED AP with relevant specialty as an integral member of the design team. And a second project team member who can either be an AP with specialty (any) or a GA. (Neither of these two individuals can be the person claiming the point in IPc2.1.)

10
27
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Nov 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

I think you make a great point.

On your proposal, I agree that in some ways it's the best of a bad situation, but it's not pretty, mainly because 2 points out of 110 seems excessive. I wonder if LEED will have to go to half points for some credits or credit options in the next version, due to the way the draft is written. In that case perhaps half a point for each half of your proposed IPc2 would be workable (though not pretty).

11
27
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Nov 23 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

I don't think half points help. The original promise was that the AP could earn a point. It's already been diminished since it used to be 1 out of 69 possible. Now it's 1 out of 110 points. That's 63% of it's original value. Two points out of 110 for AP's is closer to it's original value.

Yes this point has always been a gimme. But how much can USGBC devalue the AP's. One AP used to be worth 3.8% of the points towards a certified project. With the current proposal, one AP is worth 0.8% of the points towards a certified project. With the increased burden of being an AP and it's decreased value, is it still worth being an AP?

12
27
0
Scott DeGaro Sustainability Administrator, Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon, Inc. Nov 30 2010 Guest 602 Thumbs Up

I’m not sure how many people remember, but there was a time when there was an ID credit for project team members in addition to the LEED AP (owner, engineer and architect) to become LEED APs. Over time that ID credit disappeared, but the credit is still a gimme. I see the proposed change as an attempt to evolve the credit (and green design in general) and make the credit less of a gimme…which I think is good.

I think the important thing to remember is the intent of the credit and of a LEED AP. The LEED AP, among other things is supposed to guide the process and manage LEED online, while being an advocate and “expert” in sustainable design and green principles.

The biggest problem I see with the credit is that almost anyone involved with the project can claim that credit, regardless of what level of involvement they have and what benefit they bring to the LEED/Sustainability/Green process. I’ve seen a number of projects go through certification and earn that point, while an inexperienced person does the documentation and manages the LEED process.

I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this proposed change, since I first saw it. I’d like to see the credit change, and possibly even a prerequisite added…something like:

PF prereq. 1 – LEED/Green Design Leadership

Intent: To encourage and educate green design principles and sustainability throughout the project.

Requirements:
1.) The LEED Project Administrator or person designated by them, will serve as the “champion” for green design principles, throughout the project.
2.) The “champion” will:
a. Be accredited as a LEED AP (with or without specialty) or
b. Be accredited as a LEED Green Associate or
c. Be accredited under a comparable different rating
d. Complete a minimum of ## (8?) hours continuing education during the project, ## (3?) of which must be LEED specific to the project rating system (these hours can be concurrent with other projects completed during the same timeframe)
3.) The “champion” will document and report information about the project including:
a. A summary of green design principles employed for major building elements and systems (site, envelope, HVAC, plumbing, electrical)
b. A description of team organization and how it fostered integrated designAn integrated design process (also called "integrative" design by some proponents) relies on a multidisciplinary and collaborative team approach in which members make decisions together based on a shared vision and holistic understanding of the project. Rather than a conventional linear design process in which a design is passed from one professional to another, an integrated process has all key team members talking together through out the design and construction process as they share ideas and use feedback across disciplines to iteratively move toward a high-performing design. and green principles
c. “Lessons learned” derived from input from each key discipline and provide a report of these findings to all project members including:
i. Documentation process and requirements
ii. Summary of GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). review
iii. Methods for improvement

PF Credit 2 – LEED Accredit Professional

Intent: To support and encourage the project team integration required by a LEED project and to streamline the application and certification process.

Requirements:
1.) The LEED Project Administrator or person designated by them, will:
a. Be accredited as:
i. A LEED AP (with a specialty applicable to the project)
ii. A LEED AP (without specialty) under the supervision of a LEED AP (with specialty applicable to the project)
iii. A LEED AP (without specialty) that completes a minimum of ## (8?) hours continuing education during the project, ## (3?) of which must be LEED specific to the project rating system (these hours can be concurrent with other projects completed during the same timeframe)
b. Provide a minimum ## (two?) hours of instruction or training to at least ## (two?) project members who are not accredited as a LEED AP (with or without specialty), LEED Green Associate or accredited under another rating system (Hours will be for each project member, not total)
i. Instruction shall include at a minimum:
1. Overview of LEED rating system
2. LEED documentation requirements and process
3. Role of the LEED AP
4. Etc.
2.) The Project Administrator will:
a. Identify and document inconsistencies, required clarifications and other information regarding MPR, LEED guidance documents, prerequisites/credit requirements, documentation, LEED Online, etc. for inclusion in LEED’s continuous improvement process

I know there’s a lot there, and many probably don’t agree, but…thoughts?

13
27
0
Michelle Jones Energy Manager, LEED GA, Ithaca College Dec 02 2010 Guest 47 Thumbs Up

Often, the LEED AP on a project is an employee of the architectural or engineering firm during new construction/retrocommissioning. One of the issues I see to the integrated process is once the construction/commissioning is complete, the owner of the building has no "on-site" resource to go to for the maintenance and up-keep on the original design standards or intent of LEED.

If USGBC wants to encourage evolution of the standards by adding credits for additinal AP's on a project, then I recommend the additional credit only being applicable if the 2nd AP on a project team is an accredited LEED AP O&M that is an employee of the building owner.

This demonstrates full-cycle integration, which USGBC supports, but can not police. Having the continuity of a new construction project team member on-site after construction, in my opinion, is the evolution of higher value for LEED buildings.

Owners should be encouraged, possibly through this additional credit, to have a LEED AP O&M professional on their staff post construction. It may be the best way to ensure that the building is being properly maintained post construction and it is a great segway to applying for LEED O&M certification once the building has been occupied for 12 months.

Unless the second AP on a project provides on-going value to the building, I see no value to the building owner to have a 2nd AP from the architectural firm on a new construction project just to get an extra credit.

Michelle Jones, Ithaca College, Energy Manager, LEED GA

14
27
0
Chrissy Macken Assistant Project Manager, LEED v4 , U.S. Green Building Council Dec 03 2010 LEEDuser Member 1875 Thumbs Up

Hi Michelle -

That's a very interesting suggestion - thank you.

Thank you everyone for the feedback on this credit so farFloor-area ratio is the density of nonresidential land use, exclusive of parking, measured as the total nonresidential building floor area divided by the total buildable land area available for nonresidential structures. For example, on a site with 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of buildable land area, an FAR of 1.0 would be 10,000 square feet (930 square meters) of building floor area. On the same site, an FAR of 1.5 would be 15,000 square feet (1395 square meters), an FAR of 2.0 would be 20,000 square feet (1860 square meters), and an FAR of 0.5 would be 5,000 square feet (465 square meters).. We will continue to evolve this credit for the next version based on your feedback. Please keep in mind that regardless of how the LEED AP is recognized and incentivized in the version we are targeting to release in Q4 2012, updates will NOT change the current requirements in version 2.2 or version 3.

15
27
0
E Johnson Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Member 6055 Thumbs Up

Bill,
Why are you so angry? Try to count to ten, slowly.

How about we copy BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. again and use some of their methodology again? They seem to have went through all of the same issues raised above also.
"BREEAM APs provide the design team with expert advice on built environment sustainability, environmental design and environmental assessment. They will facilitate the team's efforts to successfully schedule activities, set priorities and negotiate the trade-offs required to achieve a target BREEAM rating when the design is formally assessed.
Up to two BREEAM credits are available if a BREEAM AP is engaged from an appropriate point in the project."
Read all about it at http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM_AP_FAQs_12_Nov_2009.pdf

16
27
0
E Johnson Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Member 6055 Thumbs Up

Pete,

To put the LEED exam cost in perspective the BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. AP costs ~ $1,300 and travel plus a nice ~ $250 per year directory fee. I would say they are both worth the cost if you're serious about the sustainability business.

17
27
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

Why? Because I have a pulse and care about the outcome. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." "As you gain experience, you'll realize that all logical questions are considered insubordination." Just going with the flow should be a crime.

I thought I've been very cordial in this topic and have been offering practical solutions.

I don't see how BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. relates. I'm discussing the promises that USGBC has made to the AP's who helped build the LEED name-brand over the last 10 years. The idea of treating legacy AP's as worthless does anger me.

oh!
1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... 7... 8... 9... 10
USGBC please don't break your promise. Darn, it's still coming out. Any other ideas?

18
27
0
E Johnson Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Member 6055 Thumbs Up

What promise was made, because I seemed to have missed it?
It doesn't take much effort to become a non-legacy LEED AP......

19
27
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

once on the USGBC website, "You do not need to pass more than one exam track in order to become a LEED Accredited Professional. All LEED APs are eligible to earn one point towards certification under ID/IU Credit 2 by serving as a principal participant on a project team regardless of which exam track was achieved."

20
27
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

Bill, as you know I sympathize with your perspective here, but I don't quite buy the argument.

What makes IDc2 so much different than EAc1, for example?

In October 2005 it was accurate to say that you could improve over ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by 42% and earn 10 LEED points. This appeared on the USGBC website in the credit requirements for EAc1.

It was clear that that was applicable to LEED-NC v2.2, and when LEED 2009 came out I didn't hear anyone say, "But USGBC said in 2005 that if we improved over ASHRAE 90.1-2004 by 42% we could earn 10 LEED points and now that's changed!?"

USGBC has made it clear that continuous improvement is part of LEED. We expect that in energy, why not expect that in integrated designAn integrated design process (also called "integrative" design by some proponents) relies on a multidisciplinary and collaborative team approach in which members make decisions together based on a shared vision and holistic understanding of the project. Rather than a conventional linear design process in which a design is passed from one professional to another, an integrated process has all key team members talking together through out the design and construction process as they share ideas and use feedback across disciplines to iteratively move toward a high-performing design. process, in a credit that 100% of LEED-NC projects earn?

I'm not a huge fan of LEED CMP or of the specialty system, and for people streaming to become LEED APs in 2009 perhaps someone should have tapped them on the shoulder and said, "You know, this credential, great as it is for LEED v2 and LEED 2009, may not be valued in the same way under LEED 2012," and I don't think that happened.

That said, I think we need to see more credible arguments against this proposed change than something that appeared on the USGBC website years ago.

(My proposal, by the way, is to simply get rid of the credit.)

21
27
0
E Johnson Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Member 6055 Thumbs Up

I can see the point about the credit not being relevant; however I also don't think just because 99% of projects achieve the credit it should be discarded. Perhaps the requirement should be increased? (I think back to the water efficiency requirements, everyone was earning the points so it became as prerequisite and increased in difficulty) As I mentioned before I like some elements of the BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. AP. In order to earn the point the AP has to be a part of the project from a very early and clearly defined stage and the role / expectations are clear on what that person should do.

The following submittal doesn't really require added value to a project:
1. Provide the name of the LEED AP
2. Provide the name of the LEED AP's company
3. Provide a brief description of the LEED AP's project role(s)
4. Provide a copy of the LEED AP certificate

22
27
0
Tristan Roberts LEED AP BD+C, Executive Editor – LEEDuser, BuildingGreen, Inc. Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Moderator

My suggestion to discard the LEED AP credit is linked  to the fact that an Integrated DesignAn integrated design process (also called "integrative" design by some proponents) relies on a multidisciplinary and collaborative team approach in which members make decisions together based on a shared vision and holistic understanding of the project. Rather than a conventional linear design process in which a design is passed from one professional to another, an integrated process has all key team members talking together through out the design and construction process as they share ideas and use feedback across disciplines to iteratively move toward a high-performing design. credit is slated to be introduced in the new draft of LEED.

The value of the LEED AP credit on projects has been twofold:

- Have someone on the team who knows LEED.

- Have someone on the team who is an advocate for integrated design.

In my opinion, the second point is superseded by the new integrated design credit. The first point really is its own reward and may no longer warrant 1 point out of 100.

That said, I think you make a good point, that one way of making the credit tougher without taking legacy LEED APs out of the equation would be to increase the documentation requirements. How did the LEED AP bring value to the project? In a way this is redudant with an integrated design credit, but perhaps it would be seen as a "lite" version of that credit.

23
27
0
E Johnson Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Member 6055 Thumbs Up

A couple of design workshops aren't enough. In my view sustainable projects need an advocate all the way through the process, while integrated designAn integrated design process (also called "integrative" design by some proponents) relies on a multidisciplinary and collaborative team approach in which members make decisions together based on a shared vision and holistic understanding of the project. Rather than a conventional linear design process in which a design is passed from one professional to another, an integrated process has all key team members talking together through out the design and construction process as they share ideas and use feedback across disciplines to iteratively move toward a high-performing design. is absolutely required, a value engineering exercise could wipe away all of that good design work later. If the LEED AP credit goes away then the currently proposed integrated design section needs to be toughened up.

As an example I think the BREEAMBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, the first widely used green building rating system, developed in the U.K. in the early 1990s, currently used primarily in the U.K. and in Hong Kong. criteria has a nice process with two stages.
First credit
1. BREEAM performance objectives are agreed, (and must be achieved at final certification – see Compliance Notes below) no later than the end of the design brief stage (e.g. RIBA Stage B or equivalent procurement stage).
2. The appointed BREEAM Accredited Professional or SQA is given the opportunity to attend key design team meetings (see Compliance Notes below) held from the start of RIBA Stage B (Design Brief) up to and including Stage E (Technical Design) or equivalent, and is to be included on the circulation list for minutes from all meetings.
3. A Design stage assessment report is submitted to BRE for interim certification.

Second credit
4. The first credit is achieved.
5. The project is reviewed against BREEAM performance objectives by the appointed BREEAM Accredited Professional or Suitably Qualified BREEAM Assessor (SQA) no later than the end of the Pre-Construction stage (e.g. RIBA Stage H (Tender Action) or equivalent procurement stage).
6. The appointed BREEAM Accredited Professional or SQA is given the opportunity to attend key design team meetings held from the start of RIBA Stage F (Production Information) up to and including Stage K (Construction to Practical Completion) or equivalent, and is to be included on the circulation list for minutes from all meetings.
7. A Post Construction stage assessment report is submitted to BRE for final certification.

24
27
0
Bill Swanson PE, LEED AP, Integrated Architecture Dec 22 2010 LEEDuser Expert 23759 Thumbs Up

Then I'd suggest that USGBC be a whole lot more up front about what's temporary. How does anyone know that 10 years from now the AP is only a stepping stone and LEED requires Fellows working on projects? Just to keep the credits advancing.

I'm sure if we asked every LEED AP who tested before June 2009 if they thought when they took their test that their AP would ever become obsolete I doubt we'd find anyone who would say they knew it was just temporary. They took it before the deadline because they didn't want the temporary AP from testing later. We didn't just convince ourselves of this.

I don't think this credit has ever been about improving the building. There is no evidence that an AP provides buildings on average better built, healthier to be in, or are more efficient. I've always viewed this credit as a carrot for people to earn the AP.

If the AP is worth their weight they would be able to earn more points on the project from their participation and knowledge. The score of a building should be based on the result, not the process.

I view this credit as different then the others simply because of statements made by USGBC outside of LEED. If they started out by saying v2.0 AP's could only count on v2.0 projects and v2.1 AP's towards v2.1 projects then I would agree. But they marketed the AP as universally applicable to all versions and all tracks because they wanted it attractive to people thinking about taking the test. They've dug their own hole by trying to develope cross-marketing brands. LEED and the AP. I don't see how their gaffe makes me the bad person for not agreeing to it.

I think a person with a CEM certificate from AEE on the design team and another on the maintenance staff would be more benefitial. Is there a chance to open this credit to other professional certification programs? The AP is no longer part of USGBC domain. GBCIThe Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) manages Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building certification and professional accreditation processes. It was established in 2008 with support from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). took it over. I don't see why this can't be opened to other organizations if the two truely are separate.

It would be a whole lot easier if this credit went away. Not a prereq or credit. Let the value of a LEED AP stand on it's own. The cynic in me doubts they would ever give that carrot up. I'd give up any anger towards this change if the whole credit went away. Even though I wouldn't be able to earn my promised point anymore. See, I'm offering a compromise.

25
27
0
Scott Bowman LEED Fellow, Integrated Design + Energy Advisors, LLC Jan 05 2011 LEEDuser Expert 11047 Thumbs Up

Tristan, I am going to agree with you. This credit should be dropped from the standards. Frankly, I did not get my AP or decide to proceed with the AP+ due to being able to get a client this credit...as an engineer about the only time we got be the person for this credit was our own building addition!

The reason we have the number of AP's and AP+'s is to show our prospective clients (owners and architects) that we care about sustainablity, and took the time and effort to gain some level of certification to that end. It also gives some credibility as you make comments since you made that effort.

26
27
0
michael myers CEO, Myers Verde Company Jan 05 2011 LEEDuser Member 40 Thumbs Up

I agree with the idea of dropping the IP Credit: LEED AP.

The IP Credit: Integrated Process for EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating systems. could be modified to include a recommendation to use an integrated team including LEED APs to develop and implement policy regarding building operations and maintenance…since the intent of the Credit states, "Engage all key project team members for the purpose of making cost- and environmentally-effective integrated decisions throughout the design and construction process."

27
27
0
William Morrison PE, LEED AP Feb 10 2011 Guest 45 Thumbs Up

Bill, I know I may be commenting on this late.
Just really started reading this board today.
Your comment "I'm sure if we asked every LEED AP who tested before June 2009 if they thought when they took their test that their AP would ever become obsolete I doubt we'd find anyone who would say they knew it was just temporary. They took it before the deadline because they didn't want the temporary AP from testing later. We didn't just convince ourselves of this."
is right on.
In 2.2 or 2009 my LEED AP status gave the same relevance as a LEED with Specialty.
The comment above that it's easy to convert is a little misleading.
There is no reason to convert under 2009.
By the time this draft become reality in 2012 the conversion option will be gone and basically you can only retest.
My office makeup has more than half the staff holding an AP, with only two individuals converting to the NC Specialty.
Many of us were taking some training to stay current a week or so ago when the discussion about the LEED Accredited Professional credit came up as it relates to the draft 2012.
It's caused quite a stir. Many thinking of converting now before the 2011 deadline utilizing the training option were surprised to find out from USGBC (by phone this week) that any training taken before converting will not count.
Thus each will be looking at 30 hours of prescriptive training after converting and before August or October.
As basically an organization/building owner with over $2,000,000,000.00 in design or construction over the next several years, registered or expected to be based on LEED principles to the maximum extent, it was not what most of us were looking forward to.

Post a Reply
0
0
Leticia SooHoo, AIA, LEED AP+ Architect,Principal / Sustainability AlfaTech
Nov 08 2010
LEEDuser Member
1029 Thumbs Up

Great analysis

Thank you for the buildinggreen post. I work for a company that does a lot of new building Cx1. Commissioning (Cx) is the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. 2. The process of checking the performance of a building against the owner's goals during design, construction, and occupancy. At a minimum, mechanical and electrical equipment are tested, although much more extensive testing may also be included., so I would like bring up that that are some pretty major updates on the CxCommissioning: the process of verifying and documenting that a building and all of its systems and assemblies are planned, designed, installed, tested, operated, and maintained to meet the owner's project requirements. requirements too, such as more systems required to be commissioned. I see that as a step forward to make LEED more stringent, resulting in better performing buildings.

Post a Reply

Start a new comment thread

Apr 23 2017
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

Copyright 2017 – BuildingGreen, Inc.