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.