I am working on a LEED EB: O&M project and wondering if you could provide guidance as to whether the following would be an acceptable alternative compliance approach to achieving EQc1.5: IAQ Best Management Practices: IAQ Management for Facility Alterations and Additions in lieu of doing the flush out procedures listed in the Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance Reference Guide. The EQc1.5 requirements for flush out are geared towards commercial buildings, so they aren’t applicable to or feasible for our project because our project is a multi family residential building.
We are proposing to use the requirements from the LEED for Homes Pilot for Mid-rise Multi-family Buildings Program Guidelines, Version 1.1 EQc8.3 as an alternative compliance path to meeting the flush out requirements of EQc1.5. The requirements are copied below:
EQc8.3 Preoccupancy Flush (1 Point).
Requirements
• Flush each unit with fresh air, according to the following guidelines:
• Flush prior to occupancy but after all phases of construction are completed.
• Flush the entire unit, keeping all interior doors open.
• Flush for 48 total hours; the hours may be nonconsecutive, if necessary.
• Keep all windows open and run a fan (e.g., HVAC system fan) continuously or flush the home with all HVAC fans and exhaust fans operating continuously at the highest flow rate.
• Use additional fans to circulate air within the home.
• Replace or clean HVAC air filter afterward, as necessary.
Would this be an acceptable approach to achieving the flush out portion of EQc1.5 for our project? We would also be providing the IAQ Mgmt Plan required by EQc1.5. We are just proposing alternative compliance with the flush out portion of the credit requirements.
Thank you for your assistance.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11475 thumbs up
May 3, 2010 - 9:49 pm
While there is logic to using a homes-specific protocol here, it looks to me like the approach you are proposing is less stringent, i.e. unless my math is off, less air volume will be introduced in the 48-hour period than the 14,000 cubic feet required by the credit. This may raise a flag for reviewers.Can you be more specific about why the EBOM requirements don't work for your project?
Jenny Carney
Vice PresidentWSP
LEEDuser Expert
657 thumbs up
May 3, 2010 - 10:21 pm
Tom,
I haven't seen any projects attempt substituting Homes criteria for multifamily EBOM, but that may be in part because there doesn't seem to be many EBOM-certified multifamily projects. In generally, seems like you might be pioneering an idea here, and a CIR may be the only way to get assurance if this proposed alt compliance path would fly.
Thomas Fisher
31 thumbs up
May 4, 2010 - 9:58 am
Thanks for the responses.
The issue with the requirements for flush out in a commercial building in our case is that when an apartment unit is turned over, typically there is enough work done to meet the requirements of a LEED EB Alteration or Addition because at least 2 trades are doing work. So it would be virtually impossible to flush out each unit individully per the LEED EB requirements every time this happens. The other piece of this is that the building doesn't have mechanical ventilation (the building is over 50 years old), so the windows are the way the building gets natural ventilation. And we couldn't evacuate the other units or common spaces for the duration of the flush out. And since LEED EB doesn't allow for testing like LEED NC does, we are basically left without an option in the LEED EB system for meeting the credit requirements.
So we are looking for an approach that is more feasible in a multi family residential setting for the typical turnover activities for apartment units. We feel that the LEED for Homes criteria is much more applicable in our project's case. This is why we thought of the idea of substituting Homes criteria for multifamily EB. We are hoping to take this approach on several credits and still haven't been able to get any definite answers as to whether this approach will fly with the LEED reviewers or not. We have not yet submitted a CIR on these issues, and are trying to avoid doing so if possible due to the response time and cost.
Thanks again.
David Posada
Integrated Design & LEED SpecialistSERA Architects
LEEDuser Expert
1976 thumbs up
May 11, 2010 - 7:12 pm
It would appear that doing a flush out of just the unit being turned over and not any common spaces or other units is all that would be required since that is the only "affected space."
The question then is whether the unit itself can be ventilated at the 14,000 cf/ sf using supplemental exhaust fans, such as ones placed in windows. Depending on the climate/ location, if this is a multi-family apartment building with a common hallway & core, drawing make--up air from the common areas might meet the temperature and humidity requirements, whereas if these are apartments with external access & circulation, that could be harder.
A CIR is likely needed, but it might be useful to clarify when submitting it which criteria of the EBOM requirements are most difficult or impossible to meet: air volume, filtration, temp, humidity, etc.