I don't know of anywhere it's written that rainwater collection can or can't contribute to an ID credit in this way. In my opinion, it should be allowed, because 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. is outside the scope of reguar non-ID credits, and yet rainwater is an allowed strategy in meeting those credits. It meets the key tests of ID-worthiness.

However, with ID credits there is typically not a lot of precedent or written rules.

You could appeal, or submit 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.

Suzanne, we list nine different companies with compliant products in our GreenSpec directory—see the sidebar up and to the right of this forum.

Suzanne, I have not seen this referenced in any LEED requirements. The typical approach is to regulate individual appliance efficiency.

What you describe is similar to the issue of 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., which this credit does cover, but it's a different issue.

Suzanne, it's a good question, drain water tempering can lead to significant water use. As Tristan mentioned, this is not referenced in any LEED requirements. The latest version of LEED BD&C 2012 does not addressed it either.

Water use from drain water tempering seems to fall outside of the water use testing criteria for the Consortium for Energy Efficiency and Energy Star, which both certify dishwasher water use.

It seems like an ideal strategy in this scenario would be adding a drain water heat exchanger to capture the heat for another use and eliminating the need for using 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..

Great comments. If the drain water heat recovery encompassed all hot discharge water, i.e. from steamers etEvapotranspiration (ET) is the loss of water by evaporation from the soil and by transpiration from plants. It is expressed in millimeters per unit of time. al, that would be great. I researched drain water heat recovery for a utility in Canada about a year ago, but there were issues, in particular because there isn't enough water to 'get' anything out of. Waste AIR heat recovery is increasingly common in commercial warewashers, and those machines are fed with cold water. But alas, the water heated with waste air, then maintained by tank heaters, then has to be cooled! It's a problem. I wondered if a food waste digester discharge might work? (aerobic digester which converts food waste into 'water.')

You can also get lower-temperature dishwashers, but you have to use more chemical sanitizer (chlorine, etc.), so there is a tradeoff.

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.

Suzanne, I don't know what is meant by "other," but it does seem logical that LEED for Healthcare could be used here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!