How do I decide which one to pick?
You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?
LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.
Go premium forForum discussion
EBOM-2009 EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management
See LEEDuser’s guidance on EBOM-2009 EAp3 »
Standard path vs alternative compliance approach?
Add new comment
To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.
Tristan Roberts
RepresentativeVermont House of Representatives
LEEDuser Expert
11477 thumbs up
March 28, 2011 - 9:23 pm
Danielle, I think how you approach this credit depends a lot on your building. Are you looking at a situation with an economic feasibility question? Can you give a few more particulars?
Danielle Caestecker
18 thumbs up
April 27, 2011 - 5:47 pm
Sorry Tristan for the late response. I was unable to login for a while for some unknown reason. This is an existing building (Non profit org) and we are trying to get them LEED certified. There's one big refrig with HCFC. All the other eqt (window A/C) have less than 0.5 lbs refrig and are exempt. LEED online asks to explain why an alternative path is used vs standard. I have not seen that in any manual. Thanks if you can help.
Jason Franken
Sustainability ProfessionalLEEDuser Expert
608 thumbs up
April 28, 2011 - 9:25 am
Danielle, it doesn't seem that you would need to use an alternative compliance path. If you only have one piece of equipment that has more than 0.5 pounds of refrigerant, and that equipment does not use a CFC-based refrigerant, then you would simply use the standard compliance path and indicate that the building does not use CFCs. Note that HFCs and HCFCs are a different class of refrigerants than CFCs, and have a reduced environmental impact.