Has anyone not exhausted a small laundry room in a commercial building and had this strategy approved through a review?
I can see how a larger consistently occupied laundry area would benefit from exhaust. However, for a room with a single washer and dryer, there doesn't seem to be any danger of chemical build-up that would harm someone. On top of that, the room is intermittently occupied, and when someone is doing laundry, the dryer will be exhausting the space anyway.
To me, the "be safe add more exhaust" strategy would result in an energy penalty for a problem that doesn't exist. LEED often says it's at the discretion of the project team, but it isn't. It's at the discretion of a reviewer, who will most likely be inconsistent with other reviewers.
Thanks for any information!
Dylan Connelly
Mechanical EngineerIntegral Group
LEEDuser Expert
472 thumbs up
August 13, 2013 - 1:59 pm
Think of LEED as code. You could not provide exhaust at your discretion but there is the chance they will penalize you (depending on the reviewer) and you will have to add it later at a much higher expense.
Kathryn West
LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Green Globes ProfessionalJLL
154 thumbs up
August 13, 2013 - 2:15 pm
maybe if you affix a sign to the washer or in the laundry area that says "no bleach or harsh chemicals allowed" you could have a better chance getting approved without exhaust.
Dylan Connelly
Mechanical EngineerIntegral Group
LEEDuser Expert
472 thumbs up
August 13, 2013 - 6:32 pm
My opinion is that signs can be taken down, especially with ownership change. What are we talking here 0.5 cfm/sf. 50-100 cfm? Put an occupancy sensor on it if you are worried about an energy penalty.
Adam West
Project ManagerSouthface Energy Institute
6 thumbs up
August 16, 2013 - 12:08 pm
Thank you both for the thoughts. It appears that the intent is to exhaust chemical use/storage areas 24/7 in order to prevent gas build-up, although I can't find anything that explicitly says that. I read in one of the LEED interpretations that intermittent exhaust based on occupancy doesn't meet the intent of the credit if the room is indeed a chemical area.
There is another LEED interpretation that doesn't require single laundry rooms within an apartment to be exhausted. This implies that size and application matters when deeming whether a laundry area is a chemical use/storage area. Obviously people might be keeping bleach in this type of laundry room, so it doesn't appear to be a major concern. Thanks again.
Dylan Connelly
Mechanical EngineerIntegral Group
LEEDuser Expert
472 thumbs up
August 16, 2013 - 1:32 pm
Adam - thanks for the feedback about the LEED interpretations. Can you post the numbers you're referring to for others in reference in the future.
Adam West
Project ManagerSouthface Energy Institute
6 thumbs up
August 20, 2013 - 11:43 am
Dylan, below are excerpts from the LEED Interpretations that I referred to (they are both very old), although I misspoke about the laundry rooms. The interpretation refers to common laundry areas in an apartment, not an individual laundry room in a unit. But the take away for me is largely the same.
I'm not positive what our strategy will be regarding the exhaust. If I come across any enlightening info, I'll try to remember to update this comment.
ID#5607 MADE ON 04/18/2005
Inquiry: "3. If any of the above applies, can the exhaust rate of 0.5 cfm be reduced during unoccupied periods, such as night and week ends in order to minimize energy usage? If so, should the higher level of exhaust be tied to occupancy sensors, on a timed cycle, or manually operated?"
Ruling: "3. All areas where chemical usage occurs must be maintained at the 0.5 cfm/ft2 exhaust rate at all times to exclude the possibility of any potential chemical fumes build up. The intent of this credit is to provide a safe and healthy indoor environment for all users, and maintaining this exhaust rate will contribute to achieving this goal. The energy penalty incurred is minimal when compared to the health benefits it affords."
ID#6055 MADE ON 11/04/2003
Ruling: "A distinction needs to be made between the chemicals used in residential and commercial projects and the exposure to the occupants, especially in regards to laundry rooms. For example, if a laundry room is anticipated/expected to provide a dual purpose of providing the residents a space for them to do their laundry and possibly an area for custodians or building personnel to clean equipment, e.g. mops, brushes, etc., then as stated in the CIR ruling 7/22/03, the space would have to meet the chemical use requirements under LEED v2.1. Typical residential common laundry rooms do not fall under the category of rooms "where chemical mixing occurs."