No, they don't count as regulated fixtures under WEp1/c3.

You could probably include them as process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making., but how would you demonstrate savings? I see filling stations as saving packaging, not water, and I'm not aware of appreciable water savings from one filling station to another. I would probably not choose to include them.

thanks Tristan, that was my thinking too. As i talked through it with a colleague, it began to take shape as an innovation credit though. I can see some savings in water if using a standard drinking fountain as the baseline, since people stand there and let the water run while they are drinking...a lot, if not most of it goes downt he drain as they are drinking. If you compared that to filling a water bottle, there is very little waste, tyically you drink ALL the water that goes into a water bottle. also, by eliminating plastic water bottles in a building, you would eliminate a lot of waste to be hauled off-site. Even if the plastic water bottles get recycled, it still is cost to haul it off, and there is a cost to recycling them too. just a thought. anyone tried this?? i know in the high education world, a lot of Universities are going to these bottle fillers for environmental reasons.

I think they're great solutions. However, I am not fully convinced that you can claim savings for a filling station over a water fountain. I think they are different fixture types. And refilling a bottle saves packaging compared to getting a new bottle, and saves water compared to slurping from a fountain, but you had to have that bottle to begin with, and that took energy and resources.

It could contribute to an innovation credit, but keep in mind the rule of thumb that a single technology generally cannot earn an innovation point. I would look at it in the context of comprehensive waste reduction.

Unfortunately, the savings from WEc2 are not linked to WEc3. You will have to check the special circumstances box in WEc3 and write in your actual water savings there. I have done this before, and it was accepted by the reviewer.

Ameet, there is no specific methodology that is requred for rainwater calcs, as long as your numbers, assumptions, and methods make sense.

Project teams are permitted to include classroom sinks provided the flow fixtures installed have a similar usage pattern and are similar fixture type as for those in bathrooms. However, project teams are not permitted to include exam room sinks as these are considered process waterProcess water is used for industrial processes and building systems such as cooling towers, boilers, and chillers. It can also refer to water used in operational processes, such as dishwashing, clothes washing, and ice making.; additionally, exam room sinks are commonly regulated by different standards and 3 uses per day would not capture the water use associated with these fixtures.

Not sure if your laboratory sinks are a similar fit to one of the above described situations. In any case I would suggest including a narrative describing the typical use pattern for the laboratory sinks and why you have either included or excluded from the calculations.

Hope helpful!

Read through the LEED Interpretations. There are a few that describe a sink being used for more than one purpose (handwashing) allowed to not be included in WEp1/c3 calculations.

Nicolas, I am not sure of your question? Are you asking if there are health issues with 2-4 l fixtures? Do you mean health code issues, or actual practical problems? If the former, I don't know—if the latter, I haven't heard of issues.

Yusuf,

The standard way to approach this issue is by using appropriate usage groups. You will have to estimate the FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. for the common facilities. Yes, it may tempt the team to estimate a higher number. If the villas are residential units there is greater potential for water savings than the common fixtures, which use the stricter UPCUniform Plumbing Code/IPCInternational Plumbing Code standards.. For example baseline lavatory faucet in commercial is 0.5 gpm and in residential is 2.2 gpm.

Thanks Crissy... The development is in Hyderabad, India. So we do not have any UPCUniform Plumbing Code/IPCInternational Plumbing Code standards. The buyers of the villas are allowed to choose the fixtures they want in their home with some restriction from our side but we have a free hand as far as the common facilities go. So we can get very efficient in the common facilities but we may have to settle for lesser savings in the villas. We have no clue how we can guess the user groups right and how do we justify this to the rating agency?

Yusuf, one suggestion I make to people is to look for a similar facility in the area or under the same ownership or development group and conduct some research into usage patterns there.

Mr. Yusuf, the best way to define user groups and identifying FTEs for each usage group, you can define less efficient fixtures in villas in comparison to more efficient fixtures in common areas. Common areas will be accessible to all users or visitors but residential areas will be accessible to only specific occupants.

Hi Lauren,

In your submittal include a narrative explaining the project-specific conditions that justify using a lower daily kitchen sink use value for the residents.

The pressure should be the same with less water. I don't think there should be any issues with using 1 gpm aerators.

Jeremy, You might want to check out the WaterSense guidelines and tested fixtures they approve for use in private bathroom. They suggest between 0.8 and 1.5 gpm for private lavatories where tooth brushing and other gunky business takes place: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/faucet_spec508.pdf

I was just filling out the form too and noticed the same change. Although it now defaults at 30 seconds, the form does allow you to change the number of seconds back to 15 if that helps. I wouldn't consider this alternative compliance and just submit normally.

OK, but the case is that, except metering faucet where we can take data from cutsheet, we have to put default value which "might be modifed for special circumstances".
Do you think that requirements change during construction process might be considered as special circumstances?

Valentin,

This is a new edition to the WEp1 v4 of the credit. I believe your assumption is correct. As long as the pre-rinse spray value is 1.6 gpm or below it complies with the requirement. The actual consumption does not appear to be taken in to account in the calculation.

That is correct. Prerinse spray valves must in all cases be 1.6 gpm or less. And for projects using the v04 WEp1
Prerequisite Form, savings cannot be claimed for prerinse spray valves.

There currently is no explicit guidance on how to calculate visitors for residential components of a project, and from past experience, this has not been included in the water use calculations. If you did want to include visitors as part of the residential component, I assume you could estimate the number of transients / visitors and propose an estimated usage but it seems like this can be excluded altogether. Have you checked with GBCI?

Nicolas, it seems you an use any 2.5GPM showerhead at 80psi for your testing. There aren't any LEED accredited showerheads, so you don't have to worry about that.

Yes. That's correct. Because it's assumed that the tenant than just meets Epact 1992 not improves it by 20%. You will have to have some improvement with fixtures installed in the building. Keep in mind just because the tenant installs them all, doesn't mean you would not consider them in the calculation.

Susan, sorry that you didn't get a reply on this question. Did you make a decision on what to do here?

I realized that the gender of the patient is irrelevent because the patient bathroom does not have a urinal in it. Then I developed a spreadsheet that bases staffing off bed count which was the key to engaging the hospital staff as they think that way. We went with a 24 hour calculations for everyone one which further simplified who is in what category. We will upload the back up spreadsheet when we submit next month. It took some time but eventually we were able to streamline this process.

According to Kohler, a blow-out water closet is one that has a non-siphonic trapway at the rear of the bowl, and integral flushing rim and jet. Since the water closet you referenced has “siphon-jet flush action” I would assume that it is not considered a blow-out water closet and would use 1.6 gpf as its baseline flush rate.

My guess is someone wrote a manual for the reviewers to follow and they're following the wording of this manual that we don't have access to.

I'm figuring as much, but it doesn't seem right that they can change the rules mid-stream. Plus, it's not even accounted for in LEED 2009. Very frustrating. Each time I think I have the credits figured out and "this time we will get it through on the first try", they seem to change the rules.

I've suggested to USGBC that they look at this issue and consider putting out an addenda so that everyone is on the same page.

The gender ratio being defensible for the life of the building is actually from a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide Ruling dated 9/14/2006, "Also, you should be sure to use a 50/50 male/female ratio unless there is strong evidence of an alternate ratio for the projected life of the building."

The "strong evidence" aspect is apparently at the reviewer's discretion, and I have seen them rule both ways. To futher complicate things there are quite a few new reviewers undergoing training right now, so more fluctations between past and more recent reviews should be expected for awhile.

Tristan - I have two questions:
1) If our building is designed TO CODE with an 80/20 ratio, it would not seem to make sense to use a 50/50 ratio. The evidence for the particular facility I am trying to get certified right now is in the fixtures themselves: 2 women's toilet total, 4 men's toilets plus 4 men's urinals - for a total of 8 fixtures. These facilities have long histories (30 years plus) of operating at these ratios. Should we simply explain this in better detail to the reviewers? Again, it doesn't seem to make sense for the calculations to use a 50/50 ratio when that is not what the building is designed for or how it will be used "for the life of the building".
2) I can understand, perhaps, changing the rules with an Addenda for v3.0 (2009), but should not all v2.2 projects be held to the same standards? We have three projects that have used ratios other than 50/50 and these earned the points with no problem - exact same type of facilities. I plan to cite those certified projects in my reply to the reviewers. This has worked for other clarifications.

Thank you,
Kris

How well did you explain the permanance of the fixtures in the given ratio in your submittal? If it were up to me I'd say you have enough evidence, provided it's properly explained. I'm not GBCI, though, so I can't speak for how they see it.

I'm curious what kinds of obstacles you're facing in getting water use below the baseline. Theoretically you can replace all the fixtures and fittings necessary to get you there. What's the case you'd make for a looser requirement here?

Also, maybe I'm forgetting something obvious, but does LEED require a different baseline for projects subject to CA Title 24?

Tristan,
My intent may not have been clear. We are not facing obstacles getting water use reduction below baseline. My hope, however, was to show 'real world' savings. Where the reference guide baseline assumes reduction from 1.6 gpf to 1.28, we will be reducing from 3.0 to 1.28. Significantly lower draw on municipal resources.
We have a number of complications which make some other credits very hard to achieve ( historically significant building with large single pane operable windows which must remain), any assist here would increase our desired compliance.
LEED does not require a different baseline for CA Title 24 projects.

My gut reaction is that you won't be able to successfully argue this. ItsSeems to fall in the category of doing a great job making a big reduction, but it's not something that LEED gives extra credit for.

Think about it from a LEED policy perspective, and how difficult it would be to draw a clear line between projects deserving of extra credit for this kind of situation, and projects not deserving. LEED solves this by creating a single benchmark for what it considers a reasonable conventional baseline.

You may be able to get extra credit through RPc1, if this is an applicable credit, and through synergies with WEc2.

Other thoughts?

Tristan,
Fair enough. I do understand it must be difficult to try to find an acceptable template for all project types. In a project where we are being both innovative and historically reverential, situations arise where doing the right thing is sometimes rewarded big, other times not so much.
Thanks for your time reviewing this.
Rick

Rick, seems this is one of the obstacles of LEED (real world vs. base case). Unfortunately there's no way to "prove" that you have 3gpf fixtures, and they are not going to send someone to check every renovation project out there. Thus the reliance on a standard as Tristan mentions above.

Deborah

Nobody seems to be replying to these threads which is disapointing.

Your question seems similar to mine below in that it is not covered under any descriptions on how to achieve the credits in any of the LEED literature.

I agree with what you are proposing but the only means to verify if it will be acceptable is probably to post a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide. Of course I would anticipate that you will get an ambiguous answer and that final approval or rejection would be based on the acutal audit.

I would be surprised if this credit was awarded based only on the water metering system you describe. While research may show a 20% reduction from this kind of system it still relies on behavior rather than the efficiency of the installed fixtures.

The metering system is still a great idea, I just don't think it will be sufficient to prove compliance with this prerequisite, especially since you'd be hard pressed to prove actual savings in a new building.

I took over Deborah's project above. We did not recieve additional credit for water savings thorugh the monitoring system. This means we just barely made it over the 20 % threshold with our fixtúres and fittings, but got no points under WEp1. Unfortunately.

The documentation for this credit is mostly populated from the LEED Online form for WEp1. When you're documenting WEp1 in the LEED Online form, you have he opportunity at the beginning to define "Fixture Groups," which could correspond to different usage types like those in your project.

I have a similar project type with split occupancies of office/retail on one floor and residential multi-family on three floors. My question is relative to calculating transients for the residential component. Appendix A in the LEED reference manual provides guidance for calculating FTEFull-time equivalent (FTE) represents a regular building occupant who spends 8 hours a day (40 hours a week) in the project building. Part-time or overtime occupants have FTE values based on their hours per day divided by 8 (or hours per week divided by 40). Transient Occupants can be reported as either daily totals or as part of the FTE. Residential occupancy should be estimated based on the number and size of units. Core and Shell projects should refer to the default occupancy table in the Reference Guide appendix. All occupant assumptions must be consistent across all credits in all categories. and transients for various occupancy types, but nothing for residential/multi-family. Because we couldn't find any guidance initially on the residential floors, we assumed one visitor per residential unit. Is there any rule of thumb for calculating transients for multi-family projects?

Additionally, in the preliminary review comments, the reviewer suggested that "transients of the building should be removed from the calculations associated with these fixtures [residential] since they do not have access to these fixtures." This does not seem right as a visitor to a residential tenant would likely use the tenant's restroom, and not go down to the first floor to use the public restrooms. Thoughts?

William, I agree with your logic and I don't know of any other resources for residential transients.

Have you learned more since you posted this?

This should have a preview option. I forget some things.

I'd like to add the question about usage rates as well to this.

The LRG has water use calculations which indicate fixture usage rates based on residential standard calculation methodology presented in the LEED-NC v2.2 Reference Guide, Third Edition on page 142.

So, would guests count toward a Residential occupancy (same usage rate essentially as a home, i.g. there at morning and night)? Unless special conditions exist, projects should assume a 50/50 male/female ratio and an average of 5 fixture uses per day for residential usage.

Any thoughts are appreciated.

I would calculate hotel guests as residents, and yes, they should definitely have an assumed 50/50 male/female usage. This is always true unless there is a very specific and provable reason otherwise, which I can't really foresee for a hotel. You would also have FTEs (hotel employees) and transients (visitors + those who come for events, conferences, etc.) These would all be calculated separately in the WEc3 template. You will have to work with your client and design team to determine how many transients are appropriate based on event spaces and other hotel practices.

Thanks Mara, that's what we suspected after looking thru LRG BD+C (we are analyzing this for NCv2.2). But, still, for SS4.2 should different FTE be applied vs WEc3? As CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide v2.1 SSc4.2 6/20/2008 where the guests belong in transient calculations.

There is limited guidance from the USGBC on this matter. Inpatients are considered to be residents; outpatients are transients.

Calculating transients is often an exercise in estimation, and this is especially true for healthcare, because so many of the staff are mobile -- e.g. doctors on rounds who may pop into a building for just a few minutes or maintenance personnel who work in one building periodically but may have a permanent home in a different building. This type of occupant is usually a transient, although you should use common sense to determine your approach. You should work with your client to estimate these numbers, as well as outpatients and typical visitors per inpatient. They will probably hate this! Start with everything you know about the building, then and ask questions as specific as possible. For example, a desk in an office building often represents 1 FTE... but it could represent 3 in a hospital nurse station... even if the desk is used only two individuals, because shifts are often 12 hours.

I have not found the LEED for Healthcare draft (now quite old) to be useful on this topic, as it's something that is more likely to be addressed in a reference guide.