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 water 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.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Lauren Sparandara
Sustainability ManagerGoogle
LEEDuser Expert
997 thumbs up
August 23, 2010 - 7:07 pm
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 CIR.
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.
Shannon Gray
ConsultantYRG sustainability
228 thumbs up
August 25, 2010 - 12:13 pm
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
Suzanne Painter-Supplee, LEED AP+ID&C
PrincipalSEESolutions LLC
126 thumbs up
August 26, 2010 - 12:50 pm
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.
RETIRED
LEEDuser Expert
623 thumbs up
September 9, 2010 - 5:12 pm
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.
Suzanne Painter-Supplee, LEED AP+ID&C
PrincipalSEESolutions LLC
126 thumbs up
September 9, 2010 - 6:08 pm
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.
Kasey Corbet
4 thumbs up
September 17, 2010 - 3:28 pm
I can access the WEc4 template for schools. If you still want/need it, let me know how to get it to you.
Suzanne Painter-Supplee, LEED AP+ID&C
PrincipalSEESolutions LLC
126 thumbs up
September 17, 2010 - 3:40 pm
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.
Suzanne Painter-Supplee, LEED AP+ID&C
PrincipalSEESolutions LLC
126 thumbs up
October 14, 2010 - 12:56 am
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.