See all forum discussions about NC-v4 EQp1
 Subscribe to new posts about NC-v4 EQp1 Post a new question aboutNC-v4 EQp1
See LEEDuser’s guidance on NC-v4 EQp1»
FAQs about EQp1 :

A building has fan-assisted ventilation and no mechanical cooling system. Does this qualify as natural ventilation?

What options are available to mechanically ventilated projects outside the U.S. to meet this prerequisite?

View answers »

Forum discussion

NC-v4 EQp1:Minimum indoor air quality performance

62.1 vs 170

Default Avatar
Dianne Herrin
Vice President
Practical Energy Solutions
LEEDuser Basic Member
16 thumbs up

Hello - I am working on a new construction VA Medical Center that has been designed using the ventilation rates in ASHRAE Standard 170-2008 as per the v4 NC-Healthcare. Can we still qualify for this prerequisite under NC BD+C, since we clearly meet the "minimum requirements" of 62.1? The difference is that we did not determine the minimum outdoor air intake flow using the 62.1 ventilation rate procedure. We used 170. We would prefer to use NC BD+C for this project. Thank you.

0
Post a reply

You rely on LEEDuser. Can we rely on you?

LEEDuser is supported by our premium members, not by advertisers.

Go premium for $15.95  »

Thu, 01/26/2017 - 15:50

Seems logical that you could use 170 as an ACP to 62.1. Might want to submit an inquiry, now, and confirm.
Profile picture for user teresa
Teresa Stern
Artist, Curator, Writer
Teresa Stern Arts
LEEDuser Basic Member
20 thumbs up

Thu, 09/07/2017 - 20:20

Are there any updates regarding this? If you submitted 170 as an ACP, was it successful? Does 170 then become the baseline for Increased Ventilation under Enhanced IAQ Strategies Option 2?

Tue, 08/02/2022 - 21:45

Dianne or Teresa - Did either of you ever get a resolution or guidance on substituting ASHRAE 170 for 62.1 when 62.1 doesn't address your space type?
Default Avatar
Nancy Henderson
Managing Member
ArchEcology, LLC
LEEDuser Basic Member
67 thumbs up

Thu, 08/04/2022 - 18:46

Hi Michelle, we recently ran into this exact issue.  We were told the following by Megan Snyder at GBCI: Projects are held to the requirements of the rating system adaptation under which the project is registered, so this project would not be required to demonstrate compliance with ASHRAE standard 170-2008. That said, ASHRAE Standard 170-2008 may be used in lieu of ASHRAE 62.1-2010 to demonstrate compliance with IEQp Minimum IAQ Performance for healthcare spaces. The project team may use the Appendix 1 calculator in the older version of the LEED v2009 IEQp1 form, which incorporates space types from both ASHRAE 170 and ASHRAE 62.1, to document compliance with the prerequisite: http://s3.amazonaws.com/ao-leedonline-prd/documents/usgbc/leed/content/CreditFormsDownload/V04/hc/ieq/ieqp1/ieqp1_dya.pdf.

Alternatively, for the spaces that are regulated by ASHRAE 170, you can submit an air balance summary (or room by room airflow summary) table to demonstrate that the minimum OA changes, min total air changes, and space pressurization relationships provided are consistent with that of Table 7-1 of the ASHRAE Standard 170-2008. There isn't a specific calculator or format for which this must be presented, and it can be the same calculations that are required by local code. If you have a copy of ASHRAE's HVAC Design Manual for Hospitals and Clinics, Table 3-1 provides an example of this calculation that would be acceptable for the purposes of LEEDv4. This is expected to be the typical approach followed by most teams that require identical/very similar calculations for local code requirements.

For cases where an ventilation system serves both ASHRAE 62.1 and ASHRAE 170 regulated space types, there are several hybrid approaches that can be used, which would be a little complicated to address in detail via email. We'd be happy to evaluate any proposed approaches and/or have a conference call to discuss this topic further if you would find that beneficial.
  I had trouble finding that sample template even with the link, so if you need it I can email it to you directly.   Nancy Henderson

Fri, 08/12/2022 - 20:48

Thanks so much, Nancy - this is exactly what I was looking for!

Add new comment

To post a comment, you need to register for a LEEDuser Basic membership (free) or login to your existing profile.