leed pilot credits - we need your help!

I've worked on many projects which get between 30%-40% reduction through the use of dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals. This will make WE2 much more achievable.

Thanks for your comment. In the past, WEc2 has had fairly low credit achievement. When projects did achieve the credit, it was for the types of strategies you described, essentially using very low flow/flush fixtures and fittings. For the new credit, we wanted to make a clear distinction between the fixture and fitting efficiency credit, and the innovative wastewater credit. With this new approach, we hope to incentivize innovative water use/water saving strategies, while keeping the fixture and fitting water use reductions contained within the fixture and fitting credit. As the credit is now written, the specific strategy used is not prescribed, so there is some flexibility in how projects earn the credit. Projects will still be able to receive credit for going beyond the thresholds in the fixture and fitting credit through exemplary performance in the ID section.

Feedback we got from projects that have installed innovative wastewater treatments - typically living machines - is that there are still too many bugs in the system (no pun intended) - primarily cost and maintenance, to the extent that we are reluctant to consider them for our larger projects. As for the waterless urinals - we have encountered a lot of pushback from intended users, and less than glowing reports from current ones. State agencies in California are replacing waterless urinals in their buildings with low-flush ones.

We are pursuing Pilot Credit 10: WE - Sustainable Wastewater Management by using cooling coil condensate as makeup water for cooling towers. It would appear Option 2 is the most appropriate. The only issue is that I am unable to find anything in the local codes that state quality requirements for cooling tower makeup water. Would a comment in the narrative stating this be sufficient?

Hi Bryan, Yes- I anticipate that acknowledging this requirement and confirming compliance within an overview narrative would suffice. LEED generally seeks to reinforce that local codes are the baseline, with LEED criteria enhancing them but not taking precedent or relieving projects from compliance with their jurisdiction's applicable codes. As a general precaution, I'd recommend submitting this pilot credit as part of a split certification review design submittal so that you'll have time (ideally during early construction) to respond to any potential reviewer clarification questions about this. Good luck PS - Next time I suggest starting a new thread so your issue is at the "top of the list" so to speak.

We pursued Pilot Credit WEpc10 through Option 1 - wastewater was reduced by 50.62% from the baseline. Wastewater from toilets and urinals was reduced in our project by using dual flush toilets (4/2.5 liters/flush).

We pursue WEpc10 through option 1 In sweden dual fush toilets with 2/4 litre are quite common so it is easy to achive this credit. It works quite good but in some buildings there have been reports of problems with clogged pipes so they need to flush the pipes and then the benefit of watersaving toilets is gone. If it is a renovation-project you need to check the piping before deciding on 2/4 lutre toilets and you also need to check the piping outside the building if they are to low sloping 2/4 toilets might not be a good idea. I also agree with Tanja Arnessons comment further up that the flows for lavatory faucets are to strict, they do not work well with the pressures we have here in Sweden. So a broader perspective on water is needed.