-
What counts as “process water”?
Through the other WE credits, you’ve already realized water savings from landscaping (WEc1), wastewater processing (WEc2), and specific domestic water fixtures and fittings (WEp1 and WEc3).
This credit deals with the “rest” of the water—the 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.. It covers any fixtures, appliances, and processes that aren’t included in other credits or in the Energy...
Step-by-step credit help
Got the gist of the LEED credit but not sure how to actually achieve it? LEEDuser gives step-by-step help. Members get:
- Checklists covering all the key action steps you'll need to earn the credit.
- Hot tips to give you shortcuts and avoid pitfalls.
- Cost tips to assess what a credit will actually cost, and how to make it affordable.
- Ideas for going beyond LEED with best practices.
- All checklists organized by project phase.
- On-the-fly suggestions on useful items from the Documentation Toolkit, Resources, and Credit Language.
-
Credit language straight from USGBC
Need to check up on the exact LEED credit language from the LEED Rating System on the fly? LEEDuser includes the verbatim language. Members get:
- Easy access to the official LEED credit language with just a couple of clicks.
- On the jobsite without your bulky LEED Reference Guide? Check up on the credit language details here.
- Credit language content is used by permission of the U.S. Green Building Council.
Your credit-by-credit reference library
Why waste time chasing down referenced standards and supporting resources when LEEDuser links you directly to the ones you need? LEEDuser has gathered all the best tools out there and organized them by credit for easy reference. Members get links to:
- Organizations that can give information or help on a credit.
- Standards or studies that are key reference points for credits and prerequisites.
- Articles that help explain important topics.
- Key documents or references for credit inputs.
- Software tools you can use to run calculations or simulations.
Documentation Toolkit
In the end, LEED is all about documentation. LEEDuser’s Documentation Toolkit saves you time and helps you avoid mistakes with:
- Calculators to help assess credit compliance.
- Tracking spreadsheets for materials purchases.
- Spreadsheets and forms to give to subs and other team members.
- Guidance documents on arcane LEED issues.
- Sample templates to help guide your narratives and LEED Online submissions.
- Examples of actual submissions from certified LEED projects.
29 Comments
Drain Water Tempering
Some locales require drain water temp to be under 110 degrees. A commercial dishwasher may expel water up to 150 degrees--higher if drained right away, all tanks at once. Has the USGBC taken a stand regarding the use of drain water tempering and the potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. it uses? Thanks!
No garbage disposal - need a clarification
I have a very basic question on the requirement of "No garbage disposal" in school projects. Can I interpret "No Garbage disposal" as No garbad disposal into waste water network.
Bazeeth, the requirement is for no garbage disposals—these are appliances in sink drains that grind up food waste and drain it into the wastewater system. So you can't use these.
I suppose that if you used one but did something else with it, e.g. composted the waste, that would be fine.
Garbage disposals with on-site wastewater treatment?
The intent for this credit is "To maximize water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems."
The principal at our school was not willing to eliminate garbage disposals based on concerns about health-safety and food scraps. However all wastewater is treated on-site in a sewage pond. Would LEED allow garbage disposals if we are not tied to a municipal wastewater system?
It might be worth it to review WEc4.3 under LEED for Healthcare. They actually allow disposers if under full load they use 3-8 gpm, and under 1gpm no load, with a ten minute shut off timer. Would your principal allow a pulper? That's one of the best because it will take items other than food waste.
Category "Other" for WEc4 LEED for Schools
Does anyone have an idea what 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. using appliance could be considered "other?" i.e. a pulper, waste collector, both alternatives to disposals? If so, can the baseline potentially be LEED for Healthcare because it has baselines already set in that track? Thanks.
Suzanne, I don't know what is meant by "other," but it does seem logical that LEED for Healthcare could be used here.
Utilizing scrap collector instead of a garbage disposal
Has anyone attempted to utilize a scrap collector when attempting WE4? It recirculates the water it uses, reducing supply water usage by 90% over traditional garbage disposals. It would then grind the fibrous & non-soluble food waste and reduce waste bulk by 50% - 80%, reducing the amount of disposed waste. The client is not willing to compost everything, but we are attempting to get them to compost the pre-consumer waste (kitchen scraps, etc) thus reducing the amount that would be put in the scrap collector, and further reducing the amount of 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. needed to eliminate food waste. Has anyone else attempted a similar approach?
Many of my foodservice consultant clients specify collectors. Under LEED for Healthcare (Pilot), collectors are addressed. I would imagine that someone may have presented collectors as alternate compliance path, but compared to a pulper, at 2 gallons per minute, the collector is not the "best." Larger operations have difficulty with collectors because they must be emptied, and there is lifting involved. Collectors also offer up somewhat of a pre-rinse with their gusher heads, and using recirculating water.
Change in WEc4 in LEED 3.0 vs. 2.0/2.2
I see that there is a subtle change in WEc4 in LEED v3.0 over v2.2 that has some of my food service consultant clients very concerned. And with good reason because their kitchen's performance can be severely affected, and they are largely responsible for achieving this credit.
Under the previous version, four of the five processes, IN AGGREGATE, reducing water collectively by 20% was the means to get the credit. Now, each individual item has to be 20% lower than standard. Many food service designers would agree that today's boilerless steamers frequently do not provide the production needed for a school. But if they could use the best in class steamer WITH a boiler, for instance, that actually worked for the school, and made up the difference using lower water usage "everything else " for a total 20% water usage reduction, why wouild that not be considered as the intent of the credit?
Door-style dishwashers that use less than one gallon per rack are generally undersized for schools, even for those using door-style machines now. There is a drop in production from 55 or so racks per hour, down to 38, so run time is longer, so potentially higher energy costs, not to mention labor. I had one client specify two smaller clothes washers rather than the one larger unit, because the smaller ones met the standard, the larger did not, but the two together exceeded the water and energy for the one larger model. Another specified an ice machine in a school that didn't need one to get this credit by having 4 of the 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. users. Besides, schools take very good care of their kitchen equipment, so they are stuck with the decision for at least 20 years. Nugget ice makers, at 12 gal/100#, rather than cubed ones at 20, significantly make up the deficit while keeping the kitchen high performance. Therefore, properly sized dishwashers and steamers are possible.
What is the rationale here? Better, what is the answer? It seems to me that the consultant can't make a correct decision--if they pass on the credit, they look bad, but if they specify products that don't work, they look worse.
Hi Suzanne,
I hear ya!
I think it makes sense that the requirements should be able to be met through a combination of efforts as opposed to having to have each individual item meet the requirements. I can't answer your question regarding the GBCI's rationale though I can suggest that you'll probably have to follow the requirements of the credit as its currently stated if you'd like to get the point.
Alternatively, you could submit a project specific 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.
Latest addenda for the credit is here: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7054 which just further clarifies that you must include "at least 4 process items" with "all appliances within at least 4 equipment types."
As a consultant I generally try to follow the intent of the credit and try my best to meet it. I also try to remind my clients that, even if the point isn't earned, we should still try our best to do the "right" thing. This usually means, deciding your priorities and goals in terms of LEED Certification level and then doing what you think is both reasonable and most beneficial for our planet.
Sometimes, you need to follow the LEED requirements in some instances and diverge in others.
Suzanne,
Where do you see this change from a 20% reduction on all equipment to a 20% reduction on each piece of equipment? As I read it, we are still allowed to calculate a 20% reduction based on an aggregate number.
Shannon
Shannon, please see Lauren's link above. But the real way to clarify it is with the online template at LEED Online. If you would like to send me your email address, I will forward the old template to you with some specifics plugged in, and you can plug the same figures into the online template that I have NO ACCESS to. This is why the USGBC really needs to make the letter templates at LEED Online available to at least members, because not all of us have an active LEED for Schools project, OR, we do and we just don't have access. Bottom line, if we plug the same figures in, and it comes up with the point, then nothing has changed.
All –
I do not see the difference Suzanne is noting for this credit’s requirements either. If it is in fact a difference between the v2009 Form (formerly known as a Template) and the credit’s requirements, this should be reported to USGBC LEED Resource Development for a fix to the Form. I do not have access to the Form for Schools v2009 and cannot confirm the calculations. Looking at LEED Online v3 Help (new and improved - https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/co...), a new version of the WEc4 Form was released on 8/20/10. I wonder if Suzanne’s consultants were using the Beta Version of the Form previously as her post is dated 8/20/10. If the problem exists in the new version of the Form, it should be reported as flawed.
Because the USGBC no longer has the forms, previously published under 2.0/2.2 as "sample templates" ,http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1447
for LEED 3.0, but continue to have on their site those for LEED 2.0, 2.2, see link above, we have no way of checking it. My point is that you used to be able to COMBINE the water usage for the four of five process items, steamer, dishwasher, ice maker, pre rinse spray and clothes washer, which in TOTAL had to reflect a 20% reduction in water usage. So, if a consultant spec'd an ice maker that was over the baseline, but made up for it with another piece, he'd get the credit. NOW, EACH OF THE FOUR items, of the five to choose from, must in of itself, stand alone as each being 20% below baseline. I was told this by a consultant on a project whose architect kicked it back. While language is not totally clear I told her that the only way to check it would be to access the template on LEEDOnline and plug in some numbers, to test the old scenario. Dishwasher standard is one gallon per rack. Easy to exceed on a rack conveyor machine, but harder on a door style machine. So if you spec a door because that is all the customer needs, at say .91, you aren't 20% below. But your ice maker standard is 20 gal. per 100 lbs. of ice. So if you spec'd an ice maker using 12, you'd drastically cut the water usage, easily making up for the short fall for the dishwasher. Under 2.2, you'd get the credit. Under 3.0, I am told that you would not because the door machine isn't of itself 20% below baseline. I want to be wrong on this, but until I can see that template for myself, plug in numbers for four pieces of equipment, deliberately making one NOT be 20% below baseline, while the total of 4 together as a package IS 20% below or better, I can't tell if you'd get the credit. I have tried and tried to get access to this but I am not on a project right now. So if anyone out there in LEEDUser-land can access the WEc4 template on LEEDOnline, I will happily supply numbers to try this out. I can't tell if there's a flawed form if I can't see the form. The CaGBC, unlike the USGBC, publishes their LEED 3.0 sheets in an xls workbook. NICE! Sadly, they don't have a LEED for Schools, or I'd check there.
I can access the WEc4 template for schools. If you still want/need it, let me know how to get it to you.
I would deeply appreciate it. I am doing a class next week and don't want to mis-inform anyone. ssupplee@championindustries.com . Many thanks.
Thanks to Kasey (my new best friend), here's what I found when using her template: a. the 20% reduction is built into the baseline, i.e. see LEED Retail, which is higher. This is NOT clear in the credit language which implies that you beat the drop-down by 20%; b. there are two categories for ice makers based on poundage, so you can have two ice makers, one in each category and they count separately, as opposed to two dishwashers, which was attempted by another user above. Sadly, it takes more water an energy generally, to run two ice makers this way than one larger, more efficient one. As opposed to LEED 2.2, all and each of the products must be AT the standard in the template, or below, but in 2.2, one could be out of range as long as the total reflected 20% savings.
GBCI rules it is 4 Categories, not 4 Items, and denies credit
I recently had this credit denied by GBCI and the logic they used was unsettling.
Our clarification request stated: stated: “The LEED Submittal Template has been provided stating that the project has maximized water efficiency within the building through the installation of ice machines, dishwashers, and pre-rinse spray valves. The Submittal Template indicates that no refrigeration equipment was used in the project that uses once-through coolingA once-through (single pass) cooling system is one which water from any source is used to transfer heat from equipment or processes and then discharged. with potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems., and that no garbage disposals are installed on the project. The Template also indicates that all 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. use equipment is less than or meets the maximum water use LEED allowable limits.
However, per the requirements listed in the LEED for Schools v2.0 Reference Guide for WEc4, the project must include at least 4 process items. Please note that while the project has listed 5 pieces of process equipment that meet the water use levels, only 3 categories of process equipment are listed. Each category of process equipment may only be counted once towards the credit requirements, because it is assumed that each piece of process equipment in each category meets the water use level requirements in full. This same implication requires that all process equipment included in the project under each category must meet the water use level requirements.
TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please provide a revised Template demonstrating that the project includes at least 4 categories of process water equipment in which all equipment in each category meets the water level use requirements for this credit."
I contacted Christopher Davis at GBCI who then contacted the WE TagLEED Technical Advisory Group (TAG): Subcommittees that consist of industry experts who assist in developing credit interpretations and technical improvements to the LEED system.. He wrote: “I have confirmation from the Water Efficiency Technical Advisory Group that “item” in the credit requirements is intended to refer to a category of items. This is intended to prevent, for example, projects that may have 5 dishwashers when only one meets the credit requirements. Note that the credit also allows you to propose your own benchmark against which to compare equipment that could be used to meet the requirements...”
We attempted to build a case around this and even contacted USGBC Schools staff who believed we had made a good case and said they would go to bat for us on this. We wrote in our clarification response memo: “While we both acknowledge and agree with the logic of this clarification to avoid unintended consequences, we designed the project under the assumption that we needed 4 process items. In addition, we worked hard to design the project’s kitchen to meet the requirements of this credit including no garbage disposals and no refrigeration equipment using once-through cooling with potable water. We then followed guidance in the Reference Guide to assess all processes in the building that used water to identify opportunities for selecting high-efficiency equipment. All items in the categories of commercial dishwashers, ice machines (both classes), and pre-rinse spray valves at XXXX meet the credit requirements. We do not have any commercial clothes washers on the project. We do not have any food steamers on the project and purposefully eliminated this equipment category due to its water intensive nature. As far a commercial water using equipment goes, we do have a combination oven that does both convection cooking, steaming, and a combination of both but since it is not just a “food steamer” we would have to come up with another water use benchmark. Upon investigation we learned from our Food Service Consultant that we could not find a water efficient model although our combi oven is boilerless. So unfortunately we cannot propose a benchmark for that piece of equipment. We do not have any other new commercial process water using equipment on the project.
In order to meet the reviewer’s request to have another category, we looked throughout the school for water using equipment. We do a have a residential dishwasher in the Family and Consumer Services classroom. In light of our water conserving ethic for the school, we went to great lengths to specify this residential dishwasher as energy and water efficient earlier in the project. We utilized BuildingGreen’s GreenSpec category of residential dishwashers when specifying it. It states: “Most of the energy consumed by dishwashers is used to heat the water; therefore, water-efficient dishwashers are also energy-efficient. As with other home appliances, national energy standards have catalyzed the development of more efficient dishwashers. As a measure of efficiency, the Energy Factor (EF) describes energy performance under carefully defined conditions, and provides a basis of comparison among different models. The national energy standard requires all regular size dishwashers to have an energy factor of at least 0.46. The Energy Star program qualifies dishwashers exceeding that standard by at least 25% (EF of 0.58)….”
GBCI responded when they denied our credit: “The project team has provided a revised Template demonstrating that the project has included 3 categories of process water equipment (ice machines, dishwashers, and pre-rinse spray valves). A supplemental narrative has also been provided to describe the project's strategy for attempting this credit.
However, while the Template and narrative demonstrate that all six process water equipment items meet the water level use requirements for this credit, the project has not demonstrated that at least 4 categories of process water equipment have been included on the project, as required. Please note that the Residential Dishwasher is not considered a category separate from "dishwashers." Please also note that while the project's strategy for attempting this credit is commendable, not all credits apply to all projects. The documentation does not demonstrate credit compliance.”
They had no idea how much effort we went to get the district to remove garbage disposals in the kitchen and well as the lengths we went to adhere to all the credit requirements and then they changed the requirements on us. I hope no one else has this experience. Our team decided to not pay the $500 to appeal this because we felt it was a waste of money.
How very unfortunate. Your team clearly had a solid grasp of the intent of the credit, met it (in my opinion) and documented it adequately. It is very frustrating when nuanced interpretations are made and appeal is the only remedy. Though you understandably chose not to appeal the decision, there may be value in forwarding this experience back to 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. and USGBC staff for informational purposes, as it would at least suggest that this credit requires clarification. In my view this is one reason why the current CIR process (not posting them) is not satisfactory; It does not allow for "daylighting" difficult issues or provide a method for educating future users. Thank you for sharing your painful experience with other interested LEED users.
Michelle,
This info may be too late to act on, but I was looking for info about GPM vs. GPH for WEc4 and downloaded the latest (Nov. 3 2010) addenda for LEED for Schools v.3.
The Addenda Item that would help you was posted on 7/19/2010 well after your credit was rejected and states for WEc4: In the first line of the third bullet item, replace "At least 4 process items" with "All appliances within at least 4 equipment types"
The USGBC Addenda website states "Project teams are required to adhere to the Rating System addenda based on registration date." That requirement should not apply to your project which was submitted prior to the addenda. I would make a big deal about it. GBCI should be required to follow the rules established by USGBC and not make up the rules as they go.
Patricia – Thanks for directing me to this resource (and thanks Tristan for pointing me back to Patricia’s comment).
I just realized that my inquiry was posted under LEED 2009 but the credit was actually denied under LEED for Schools v2.0. Sorry I did not make that clear at the top of the post. The language of the credits was the same in both versions until the 7/19/10 addendum item for WEc4 (http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6392 (see page 21)).
That addendum item is a great clarification for LEED for Schools 2009 teams; however, I don’t think that this would change the situation for my project (even if I could utilize an addendum item from another version of the rating system to set precedent). Maybe they even used our project as a reason to change the language?
I think USGBC has greatly improved the requirements and made it clearer for other teams though and this will help them avoid a situation like we had (we only had 3 equipment types – not the now required 4 – but we had addressed all appliances within those 3 equipment types for a total of 5 process items). I still think we got a raw deal but we’ve moved on and I’m glad other teams won’t have to have this credit denied thanks to the new language.
What about if no-use at all of 4 of the 5 mentioned equipments?
If in the school kitchen there is a dishwasher with the required performance and no one of the other 4 water consuming equipments listed in the requirement, together with the compliance to the other requirements, can we get the credit?
The best "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. use reduction" is no-use at all process water, isn't it?
Excellent question. As you point out the best reduction of resource use is no use of resources.
Per the LEED Schools reference guide, this credit calls for using 4 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. items at established industry standard or lower which is quite definitive. Most often such definitive criteria in LEED dictates a very clear interpretation.
However, there is also precedent with other LEED credits such as EAc4, Enhanced Refrigerant Management, where credit is achieved if no refrigerants are used because there is no environmental impact—same concept. Your question has identified a "grey" zone and needs to be interpreted for intent.
I first recommend determining whether you have any additional process water uses in your project that are NOT on the list in WEc4. If you do have any additional uses not on the list, and can document that the rate for the items you are specifiying is 20% or below the industry standard, these items can count toward the 4 of 5 required items.
If you do not have any additional water process uses and you are able to demonstrate that by project program and goals your team consciously chose not to introduce process water elements to reduce impacts, your approach may satisfy the intent of this credit. To determine this definitively, you need to pursue an interpretation through your LEED Review Team, who is assigned when you register your project. (The former process for credit interpretations was through a Credit Interpretation Request, however, this is no longer available with LEED 2009).
Good luck and be sure to post your LEED Review Team’s response on LEED User so we can all learn from your experience.
Do Cooling Towers Count for LEED for Schools WEc4?
The credit language says to avoid "once-through refrigeration" equipment, which could mean chillers, I suppose, but from the context seems more likely to be about food refrigeration. The Reference doesn't say anything at all to clarify this, except that it shows a cooling tower in the "examples" section.
I guess, since there are no calculations for this credit but just a list of fixture types to prefer/avoid, you'd have to avoid once-through coolingA once-through (single pass) cooling system is one which water from any source is used to transfer heat from equipment or processes and then discharged. towers as well to claim the point. Does that seem right?
Yes, you are correct in assuming that that once-through coolingA once-through (single pass) cooling system is one which water from any source is used to transfer heat from equipment or processes and then discharged. must also be avoided in cooling towers, as well as with other refrigeration equipment.
I know this response is dated, but as a Cooling Tower manufacturer and the LEED AP on staff here, I need to provide my input.
1) There are no once through cooling tower designs, at least if operated properly. Cooling towers were designed to recycle water, and conserve 95% of the water in an evaporatively cooled system. Cooling towers replace once through systems to conserve this cooling water.
2) Item 8 Examples, in LEEDv3 WE Credit 4, the statement of the closed loop system in a cooling tower is not entirely correct. There are open cooling towers, and closed circuit coolers, open vs. closed systems. Potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. use is based on the amount of evaporation that is taking place in the closed loop cooler or open cooling tower, and evaporation loss is based on the heat load from the building that is sent to the tower. A closed loop cooler or open cooling tower will evaporate the same amount of water with the same heat load. It is true that using a closed loop cooler keeps the system clean, but this just helps with fouling in the system, and does not necessarily save water.
Our local water utility encourages the collection of condensate to make up evaporation loss. It seems we should be able to count that towards the 20% reduction for path 2 above. Has ayone tried this approach?
Alison, though I have not used this path yet, I do think you should give it a shot. Be sure to include documentation to support the quantity of condensate collected, a clear description of how it is recycled and displaces potable waterPotable water meets or exceeds EPA's drinking water quality standards and is approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction; it may be supplied from wells or municipal water systems. use in the cooling tower, show your calculations in gallons per minute as is standard for cooling towers, and determine percent reduction. The credit requires 20% reduction from standard, so you'll need to do calcs to see if you can meet that benchmark. Good luck!
Please register to use the forum.