We are designing a building for a client that will use purchased steam and chilled water from a local central plant. The central plant still has R-11 chillers and we advised them they needed a phase out plan. The client has engaged a third party to prepare a study of two phase out alternatives; replacement and retrofit. Can anyone provide guidance as to the level of effort required by USGBC/GBCI in the study of the feasibility of refrigerant phase out in order to claim exemption from the pre-requisite? At the surface it seems like it won't be hard for the client to squirm out of this pre-requisite.
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium for
Shillpa Singh
Senior Sustainability ManagerYR&G
131 thumbs up
October 7, 2010 - 12:12 pm
The latest district energy system guidelines provide the details of compliance with EAp3 Prerequisite. These are copied below, and available at http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7671
"All applicable upstream systems must either be CFC-free or a commitment to phasing out CFC- based refrigerants must be in place, with a firm timeline of five years from substantial completion of the LEED project. Prior to phase out, reduce annual leakage of CFC-based refrigerants to 5% or less using EPA Clean Air Act, Title VI, Rule 608 procedures governing refrigerant management and reporting.
An alternative compliance path for buildings connected to a central chilled water system requires a third party audit showing that system replacement or conversion is not economically feasible. The replacement of a chiller(s) will be considered to be not economically feasible if the simple payback of the replacement is greater than 10 years. To determine the simple payback, divide the cost of implementing the replacement by the annual total cost avoidance for energy (consumption and demand charges) that results from the replacement and any difference in maintenance costs including make-up refrigerants. If CFC-based refrigerants are maintained in the central system, reduce annual leakage to 5% or less using EPA Clean Air Act, Title VI, Rule 608 procedures
16
governing refrigerant management and reporting and reduce the total leakage over the remaining life of the unit to less than 30% of its refrigerant charge."
Michael Tillou
Director of Energy ServicesCannon Design
52 thumbs up
October 12, 2010 - 1:08 pm
Thank you for your reply, we understand the DES rules but my question really had to do with trying to understand the level of rigor required in the audit to confirm the financial feasibility of the refrigerant replacement.
Is there a sample audit that has been previously submitted to USGBC that could be posted as a template to follow. My concern is that the client will commission a third party audit that will not, in my opinion, have the level of rigor suitable for a LEED pre-requisite. I was hoping to gain knowledge of the level of effort required so I can help ensure an audit is performed that meets the rigor of the LEED review process.
Shillpa Singh
Senior Sustainability ManagerYR&G
131 thumbs up
October 15, 2010 - 4:36 pm
Audit maybe a standard walk-through. You can use ASHRAE level II as a process, limited for the chiller. The audit needs to result to answer the questions- how old is the chiller, how much energy it will save if replaced, refrigerants used, leakage rates and supporting documentation to go with it.