Hi LEED experts,

I'm working on a project that intends to use a Sealant, which the manufacturer claims has been tested according to California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Standard Method v1.2–2017; however, the documentation provided shows a test performed on a different product in the same product line.

The manufacturer confirms that the raw materials used in the tested product are the same as the proposed material for the project but with the highest VOC content. Therefore, it represents this product line's worst-case scenario of VOC content.

The question is: Are these test results from another product with a similar composition and higher VOC content acceptable for the Low Emitting Materials credit criteria? have you had a similar situation? 

Thank you. 

Can anyone confirm what consultants should be included in the design contract? In a typical prime consultant contract, there are subconsulting disciplines which we assume would be part of the design contract, but what about other specialist consultants contracted by the owner?

Good day!  We are working on a large warehouse facility that requires a large, 20' tall pump house to support a sprinkler system.  It will run on diesel fuel.  With this fuel need to be metered?  It will not be occupied.

Thanks!

Hello, 

We have a CI project within an existing building. We are replacing nearly half of the plumbing fixtures, but we still have old toilets and faucets with no available information. Unfortunately, we cannot find the flow rates for these fixtures, and we also lack any old technical drawings.

Has anyone be in this situation? Would it be accepted if we use the baseline consumption? 

Also, for the prerequisite, would it be accepted if we just didnt consider the existing fixture? I know that we can't to that for the credit, but it seems unclear for the prerequisite if that is an acceptable solution. 

Thanks !

Hi Forum, can anyone confirm that a modular vegetated systems (plastic modules with ecomembrane, above ground) can count on the calculations for the vegetated surface, i would like to implement a reflective surface in compliance but also a figure from the owner like a logo, instead of using a construction material i want to suggest vegetated surface but I don't know if this complies with the credit. 

I have some concerns with the proposed approach to 'Tree Equity' for international projects. There are a number of components of the credit language that lack the detail that would give project teams a clear understanding of what is required. For example, how is the 'surrounding community' defined for the tree cover site assessment? How is 'lower tree canopy presence' defined (what is the benchmark)? It is also uncertain what happens for projects that do not identify underserved populations in the viscinity - are they exempt from this requirement?

I feel that we should consider removing the direct connection to equity and simplifying the focus of this portion of the credit to increasing tree canopy (which would appear to better mirror the requirements for US projects). The ability for a project to provide meaningful shade to neighboring properties will be limited in many cases. For projects that are able to accomplish that, it feels like grounds for an exemplary performance or innovation credit.

For the lighting credit you need to have individual controls at 90% of patient positions.  LEED defines patient positions as:

A patient bed, infusion chair, recovery room bay, or other location where a patient receives clinical care

Would you classify a drawspace (where they take blood samples) as a location where a patient receives clinical care?  I wouldn't think so because they're not getting care, they're just getting their blood taken and only for a couple of minutes.  Thoughts?

Hi all,

Does anyone know the procedure for calculating the Baseline for "process load" and "HVAC" in the WEpc115 calculator? 

My client owns a product-service company that makes (charged) rechargeable batteries available to their clients on a subscription model, whereby my client maintains ownership of the batteries. According to MR Credit: Purchasing in the Existing Buildings category, Option 1: Ongoing Consumables, at least 50% of ongoing consumables must respect at least one of the seven criteria given. In terms of batteries, three of these could potentially be applicable: extended use (batteries are rechargeable), materials reuse (batteries are recharged and arguably reused many more times than is typical), extended producer responsibility (my client takes back all batteries and sends them directly to a battery recycler). Even if just the first criteria (extended use) would be applicable, could my client's clients apply their use of rechargeable batteries to the 50% ongoing consumables minimum in order to be admissable for 1 point? Would the purchase of such a product-service be equivalent to a direct purchase that respects the criteria, if the user does not actually own the batteries?

For low-level metering of loads, greater than 10% can a non-revenue listed meter (or PTs and CTs integrated with the BAS) be utilized to collect data in accordance with obtaining the advance metering credit?

Thank you in advance for your feedback and consideration.