July 2010 LEED Addenda Published by USGBC
Have you checked out the latest LEED addenda—published by USGBC on July 19, 2010? This is the latest installment in their new quarterly addenda system. There are separate addenda for BD&C, ID&C, and EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems., plus documents for the Reference Guide (including the credit language), and just the credit language.
See anything that strikes you as particularly interesting or important?
One issue that LEEDuser is looking at is whether in BD&C, WEp1/WEc3: Water Use Reduction have intentionally been changed to disallow non-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. from contributing to points. The credit seems to have been refocused around "efficiency," not just "conservation."
Previously there was text on calculating the design case that said: "The design case annual water use is determined by totaling the annual volume of each fixture type and subtracting any nonpotable waterNonpotable water: does not meet EPA's drinking water quality standards and is not approved for human consumption by the state or local authorities having jurisdiction. Water that is unsafe or unpalatable to drink because it contains pollutants, contaminants, minerals, or infective agents. supply." The new addendum removes the last part leaving: "The design case annual water use is determined by totaling the annual volume of each fixture type." What do you think? Is it an oversight that "rainwater collection" is still listed as an implementation option, even though that section was also revised?
We're studying this and the other addenda and will keep you posted on what we learn. Please do the same!
17 Comments
EBOM changes explored in more depth
I just posted a more detailed review of the key LEED-EBOM addenda from November 2009 to July 2010, for anyone who's interested. This includes the 1993/1994 issue that Pete noted (thanks!) plus the EBOM version of the containment drain thing that Allison noted. Stay posted for other rating systems.
IEQ c5 requirement removed
It looks like the requirement for hazardous liquid waste containment for IEQc5: Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control has been removed, which is probably for the better since the requirement was so vague...
EBOM change from 1993 to 1994 for WEp1/WEc2
Also note that the July 19 addenda shifted the pre-/post-1993 fixture baseline to pre-/post-1994. Though this will only affect buildings with plumbing systems installed during 1993 or 1994, the change provides a significant advantage for a 1994 building pursuing LEED-EB O&M.
Water Use Reduction
Yes, this credit does focus on efficiency, but does still allow the use of non-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.. Notice that the rating system intent states "To increase water efficiency within buildings...." and does not mention potable water, so please consider the reference guide revisions as neccessary to align with the rating system language.
However, the "Potential Technologies and Strategies" section of the Rating System documents do still include "Consider using alternative on-site sources of water...." and thus it is still a potential strategy for earning this credit. It is an alternative compliance path and the submittal requirements for this will be included in the revised WEp1 Additional Guidance, which will be available soon.
ShaVon Diaz
LEED Specialist, USGBC
I didn't know USGBC was on here. HI. Thanks for the info.
I guess that answers it. Thanks for the clarification. Is the language meant to say that the definition of "Design Case" is the flow rates of the fixtures alone before taking deduction for non-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. sources?
Hi Ben,
This distinction is not necessary. See page 169 of the BD&C reference guide which states, "Once the design case water use has been determined, compare the volumes of water required for each end use with the volumes of alternative sources of water available on-site." Essentially, the design case water use would be adjusted if non-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. is used.
Thanks everyone. As a follow-up, I have a simpleton-type question, so bear with me if this is obvious. What are the mechanics of actually entering the volume of non-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. onto the template? I am looking at one now and there seems to be no area to enter that figure and hence have the points tally properly.
Marian,
Unfortunately, you will have to provide additional and separate calculations. So, you can't actually input the information into the credit form. The points will likely be updated and tallied by the review team.
Shannon
Thanks, Shannon.
Very glad to hear non-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. was not eliminated as an option for this credit. I question why non-potable water use was relegated to an alternative compliance path and not included on the template causing an extra piece of documentation to be created by the team. My concern is that since this strategy is an alternative path it will not be used as frequently, and the documentation process got more difficult rather than simpler, which is the goal of LEED streamlining. Do you have any insight as to why this issue went this way or if it will be streamlined again in LEED 2012?
The focus of WEp1 is efficiency which is basically why the use of non-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. is relegated to an alternative compliance path. All sources of water should be used efficiently. We have appropriately and completely addressed this issue in LEED 2012, so please keep an eye out for the public comment period to provide comments/feedback.
Really
I can't imagine the USGBC taking out non-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. consumption out of it without giving some other incentive to pursue collection. Rainwater harvesting costs money and it's a good thing. If they disallow deduction then there isn't an incentive of doing this. It may be an oversight?
Question would be if they are changing the template that allows you to deduct rainwater or other non-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. volume. I think what they are getting at is that the definition of "design case" is just the flow rates without the rainwater...
Feed me!
Tristan, is it possible to get a feed of these posts? Saw this thanks to the email blast, and it looks like there's a bunch of good content worth keeping up on.
Joel, we'd love to set this up along with some other forum enhancements.... stay tuned.
For specific credit forums, like WEp1, for example, you can subscribe by clicking on the link just below where it says "10 Comments" at the top of the forum. You can also acces this feature through your profile.
Revisions are up to 40 pages now. Sad. Thanks for keeping an eye on these things.
Please register to use the forum.