EBOM 2009 SSc2: Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan

Mayra, I'm sorry that we didn't get a response to you in time for the car wash. Did the event proceed, and did you find an acceptable product?

One option would have been to do your best but not count this for the 20% minimum compliance threshold for this credit—that should hopefully leave plenty of other activities to use for compliance.

The best performance metric is different for maintenance equipment than from the other areas (cleaning products, paints, and deicer). For maintenance equipment, your best bet is to use a metric like equipment run-time hours or frequency of use. So your plan might say something like, the goal is to use environmentally preferred maintenance equipment 80% of the time based on the total equipment run-time hours.

For the other areas, the most typical performance metric is the total cost of applicable products used. An example being 75% of deicer was environmentally preferred based on the total cost of all deicer used during the performance period.

Note for maintenance equipment that using a metric like the number of compliant pieces of equipment may work but only in situations where you are not counting manually powered items like brooms, rakes, etc. Run-time hours is the safer bet.

At the bottom of pg. 12 it says "Please see USGBC's LEED Registered Project Tools (http://www.usgbc.org/projecttools) for additional resources and technical information

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=75

Look for products marketed as meeting CALGreen requirements. CALGreen incorporates the CARBThe California Air Resources Board, part of the state government, is charged with maintaining clean air. This agency is unique at the state level: California was the only state that had such an agency before the passage of the federal Clean Air Act, and was allowed to keep it. 2007 Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings by reference. The Traffic Marking Coating category limit is 100 g/L.

There are benefits and drawbacks to this approach. Benefits first:

1. This should be a shortcut to identifying a low VOC coating.
2. The CARB SCM category limits are based on technologies that will work in any climate condition in the state.

Drawbacks:

1. You are unlikely to find a product that is marketed for conformance to the VOC limits and chemical limitations in GS-11. The 2010 edition of GS-11 is somewhat nebulous on which product categories it is supposed to cover.
2. There are only 25 or so products currently listed as GS-11 certified. Given that the CARB SCM includes 42 distinct coatings categories, there would seem to be a coverage gap.
3. Until the CARB SCM finishes migrating to northeastern state regulations and IGCC jurisdictional adoptions, you will likely have to import CARB compliant coatings from California.

And here is the big one: The sample MRc3 calculation from the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. Reference Guide as listed here in LEEDUser references GS-11, not any of the VOC limits utilized in IEQ credit language elsewhere in LEED BDC. I'm not clear on whether use of anything besides a GS-11 compliant coating would help you with SSc2. I searched all 2009 EBOM MR and SS interpretations and addenda and did not find any addressing this subject.

Does anyone have better information on the coatings requirements for SSc2 and MRc3?

Disclosure: I work for a coatings manufacturer. We do not market exterior traffic coatings, but I'm sure I'll encounter this topic as it relates to concrete and masonry coatings and stains.

Ryan, that's correct. The earlier post on this forum by Jenny identifies the specific VOC limit.

Hi Emma, I think one or the other would probably fly, but it seems like glass cleaning is more directly pertinent.

Agreed that one or the other should do the trick. Generally, dish soap would be more likely to carry the CCD designation. I've only seen products actually marketed as glass cleaners as GS certified, not dish soaps that are incidentally used as glass cleaners.

Darin, the VOC limits here are based on those required for MRc3.

All...a little trick about the MRc3 GS-11 chart in the Reference Fuide: it only lists the interior paint VOC requirements, which might lead you to believe that standard doesn't apply to SSc3. If you go directly to the GS-11 standard though, it has the following listed for exterior paints:

Non-flat - 200 g/L of product minus water
Flat - 100 g/L of product minus water

We'll try to get a revised plan template posted soon that includes these exterior paint limits.

LEEDuser's management plan template for this credit has now been updated to reflect the change described by Jenny.

I don't have a direct answer to your question, but I do recommend reading our guide to environmentally friendly deicing—link at the top right of this page. I would put an emphasis on the practice, not on the product—a point that is fairly basic but pretty key.

Thanks, Tristan. I will take a look at the guide. And emphasis on practice does make sense.

If you are not powerwashing the hardscape, that would definitely show that you are conserving water. If you're not washing the hardscape at all, and only using manual methods like brooms, that would show that you also are not using any chemical cleansers. It's not good enough to show that you use whatever the standard industry practice is - you need to demonstrate that you go above and beyond and use the environmentally preferable technique.

You have to demonstrate that each distinct aspect of your plan was implemented at least 20% of the time during the performance period. So, if one of your 5 pieces of landscaping equipment is a mulching mower, you're good for that section. However, you would still need to show at least 20% implementation for de-icers, window washing, etc.

I understand I need to show compliance in the other sections, I was just confused about the maintenance equipment in particular. On the template, the table under performance metrics lists "uses electric power", "mulching mower" and "low smoke oil" under the maintenance equipment column. Under the implementaion target column for these items it says under each of these "include site-specific targets, no lower than 20%". The way it reads it seems like I have to have 20% of my equipment use electric power, 20% of my equipment be mulching mowers and 20% of my equipment use low-smoke oil.

Nope - you just have to meet a minimum target of 20% of the aggregate collection of equipment.

ok, thanks Jason.

The credit requires you have the management plan in place. I think it shoudl be okay if a compliant plan is changed when new circumstances, like a new covered walkway, require it to.

Good question, John. The intent is to show that your Plan will result in implementation of environmentally preferable practices for the long term. You do not need to provide specific performance period data, like number of times the windows were washed or how often you painted the exterior. However, the Plan should clearly show that the environmentally preferable practices were used at least 20% of the time during the performance period. You can do so in the "Performance Metrics" section of your document by stating your goal for each management task/activity and indicating the level of adoption during the performance period (i.e. Magnesium Chloride used as de-icing agent 100% of the time). The reviewer is going to want to know that you not only have a compliant plan, but also that it was in place and being observed throughout the entire performance period.

A sample template showing how we recommend setting up the metrics Jason discusses is provided in the Documentation Toolkit, above.

No, you are not required to provide any manufacturer documentation along with the finished Plan for SSc2, although you may do so if you would like to highlight that you are using compliant products at least 20% of the time.

Kevin, this is one of those situations where the submittal requirement doesn't have a whole lot of bearing on the actual level of operational performance at the project building. This requirement to upload a site plan was added in v2009 to create continuity between the SS credits, but isn't really relevant to the key criteria for SSc2. If you are using a site plan to highlight features for other SS credits (SSc5, SSc6, SSc7, or SSc8), feel free to use the same file here. However, you may also provide separate versions of the site plan for those individual credits in order to clearly show the information that is appropriate for the corresponding credit. For example, landscaping strategies may be clearly highlighted for SSc5, but a different version of the file might be used to clearly illustrate location of parking structures for SSc7.1.

Although the credit language and some of the discussion around this credit references equipment, I think the key point to answer your question, Matt, is that it's really about "best management practices," in the words of the credit language.

Even in places where the credit requirements suggest a focus on equipment or certain products or chemicals, it's doing this as a proxy for the extent to which those products were implemented in practice.

Focus on the percentage of time or instances that best practices were implemented. Use equipment or product inventories as a way to gauge that, but not as a substitute. I would agree with you that documenting a specific percentage improvement is tricky, and that complete compliance would be a good goal, or at least complying beyond 20%, and by a big threshold, to remove issues of vagueness or error.

Could you explain how to use the performance metric for the maintenance equipment. It would be helpful if you could give an example. Thank you.

Rachel,

For maintenance equipment, at least 20% of the associated practices should qualify as best management practices. For example, if you can demonstrate that out of 5 pieces of powered maintenance equipment (mowers, trimmers, leaf blowers, etc.) at least 1 is environmentally preferable (e.g., low decibal and electric), your equipment program complies with the credit requirements. Alternatively, if you do not have access to environmentally preferable equipment, you can demonstrate compliance by showing that at least 20% of the activities (e.g., hedge and tree pruning) that were taken care of using powered equipment are now done manually.

Incremental improvement (i.e., a minimum 20% adoption of environmental best practices) is discussed on pages 11-12 of the LEED Reference Guide for Green Buildings Operations & Maintenance. Make sure to add language around the extent to which best management practices are used at the project building and how implementation will be measured.

To meet the credit requirements, you must demonstrate that environmental best practices, such as the use of electric equipment or manual maintenance practices, are in place for at least 20% of the maintenance activities at the project building (and were implemented at least 20% of the time during the performance period).

If there is a specific type of equipment used at the project building that is not available with electric power, quantify the environmental benefits of using natural gas and demonstrate that other environmental best practices (including manual labor and low-decibal equipment) are in place at the project building. To see how to document such incremental adoption, you can check out the table on page 3 of the Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan Template in the Documentation Toolkit.