Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda) "Reference Guide Correction" "100000279" "2009-11-02" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" "459" "4. Implementation" "In fourth paragraph, replace the ""http://www.sfgov.org"" link with ""http://www.sfenvironment.org/ipmchecklist"" " "Reference Guide Correction" "100000280" "2009-11-02" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" "461" "11. Resources" "Under San Francisco Pest Management Program:\n\n-Replace the first hyperlink with\n""http://www.sfenvironment.org/ipmchecklist""\n-Remove the last sentence ""The 2007 list of reduced-risk pesticides is\nonline at\nhttp://www.up3project.org/documents/2007rpplbyaicomplete.pdf.""" "Reference Guide Correction" "100000281" "2009-11-02" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition" "462" "12. Definitions, Green cleaning" "Replace the term description with the text ""Green cleaning is the use of cleaning products and practices that have lower environmental impacts and more positive indoor air quality impacts than conventional products and practices.""" "Reference Guide Correction" "100001089" "2011-11-01" "Existing Buildings" "None" "None" "Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition $ Green Building Operations and Maintenance, 2009 edition, updated April 2010 " "BO+M RG: 461" "Resources" "Revise the entry for Integrated Pest Management Institue of North America, Inc to read:\nIPM Institute of North America Inc.\nThe IPM Institute is an independent non-profit organization formed in 1998 to foster recognition and rewards in the marketplace for goods and service providers who practice Integrated Pest Management." "LEED Interpretation" "10099" "2011-08-01" "Existing Buildings, Schools - Existing Buildings, Retail - Existing Buildings" "We want to request an interpretation of the requirements for LEED EB EQc3.3 stated in a previous CIR dated 4/24/2004. The CIR appears to be written for new construction and for sale unit properties (such as condos).\nThe 2004 LEED NC CIR states that multi-unit residential buildings must meet the requirements for commercial buildings (covering common area, owner controlled areas of the building), and the following for the residential, tenant controlled areas:\nItem #1: Educate the residents on the green cleaning concepts and products via discussion and written materials upon move-in and periodically thereafter.\nItem #2: Provide an estimated six-month supply of green cleaning products to residents, as well\nas information on how to easily purchase refills and/or replacements.\nAssume that a Multi-Family Residential Apartment (Rental) Property complies with the following:\n1.\nThe property that is applying for LEED EB certification meets all the requirements for LEED EB Green Cleaning credits for common spaces/owner controlled spaces including the cleaning policy and plan, products purchased and used, equipment purchased and used, and also follows the same green cleaning procedures whenever they have access to residential apartment units (including during all " "The project has proposed an alternative compliance path for 2009 Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance projects that include multi-family residential units for IEQ Prerequisite 3: Green Cleaning Policy, IEQ Credit 3.1: Green Cleaning High Performance Cleaning program, and IEQ Credit 3.3: Green Cleaning- Purchase of Sustainable Cleaning Products and Materials using Innovation in Design credit requirements outlined in Formal Inquiry dated 04/08/2004 ID #766 for multi-family New Construction projects. The proposed approach is not acceptable. \n\nFor IEQ Prerequisite 3: Green Cleaning Policy and IEQc3.1: Green Cleaning-High-Performance Cleaning Program, the green cleaning policy and program includes resident areas. Additional steps should be taken to educate the residents on the green cleaning concepts and recommended products via discussion and written materials upon move-in and periodically thereafter. Examples of acceptable steps could include a written program, a brochure, a coupon for discounted purchase, or a bulk supply of cleaning supplies available at maintenance office. \n \nFor existing building projects with multi-family spaces attempting IEQ Credit 3.3: Green Cleaning- Purchase of Sustainable Cleaning Products and Materials the percent of total annual purchases must include all cleaning purchases made for the building, regardless of who purchased the products (residents or building staff).\nApplicable internationally." "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10141" "2011-11-01" "Existing Buildings" "The project team proposes to use a environmentally preferable cleaning solution, a handheld ionized tap water system, to eliminate or significantly reduce the amount of chemicals used within the project building. \n The ionized water system works as follows: \n\n 1.When the spray bottle trigger is pressed, the water flows through a water cell that applies a slight electrical charge to the tap water.\n 2.The charged water passes through an ion exchange membrane, where the ionized water is separated into an oxygenated mixture of positively and negatively electrically charged nano-bubbles.\n 3.When applied directly to a surface, the ionized water helps break apart and lift the dirt from the surface like a magnet, enabling it to be wiped away.\n 4.Before the water exits the nozzle, a slight electric field is applied, allowing the water to carry a low-level electric field to the surface where the germs may be living. When used as directed with tap water in the majority of municipalities, this low-level electric field can kill more than 99.9 percent of harmful germs.\n\n Using an ionized water cleaning system would no longer require purchase of many green cleaning chemicals; therefore, the project team has developed a new approach to documenting IEQc3.3. Rather than documenting that 30 percent of the products purchased meet the LEED sustainable cleaning criteria (by cost), the project team proposes to document the cleaning methods used during each cleaning shift. After each shift, the housekeeping personnel will document the cleaning methods and chemicals (or tap water if using the electrolyzed water system) used. Sustainable methods and chemicals that meet the LEED requirements for this alternative compliance approach will include either the use of chemicals that meet existing IEQc3.3 requirements or the use of ionized tap water.\n\n An alternative compliance table will be created by the project team to account for criteria (with regard to performance vs. purchases) in order to demonstrate compliance with the SSc3.3 requirements. " """The project team seeks allowance to satisfy the credit requirements through the use of ionized tap water in lieu of chemical cleaning solutions. This is an acceptable approach if the following criteria are met:\n •Manufacturer’s documentation of third-party performance testing is included with the credit submittal documentation. The testing should demonstrate performance comparable to Green Seal, Environmental Choice, or another standard equivalent to or more stringent than those required in IEQc3.3: Green Cleaning—Purchase of Sustainable Cleaning Products and Materials. \n •If the device is marketed and used for antimicrobial cleaning, manufacturer’s testing must demonstrate antimicrobial performance comparable to EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and Design for the Environment (DfE) requirements as appropriate for use patterns and marketing claims.\n •A custodial effectiveness assessment is performed as outlined in IEQc3.2: Green Cleaning—Custodial Effectiveness Assessment. \n •The typical performance metric (percentage of purchases based on cost) for evaluating compliance with this credit will not apply. The project team may show compliance with one of the following:\n a) Showing, based on one year of historic cleaning chemical costs, that use of ionized tap water during the performance period has reduced the purchase of chemical cleaning and material products by at least 30%. Any changes in occupancy or other factors that vary between the baseline year and the performance period that affect the need for cleaning products must be accounted for in the analysis.\n b. Tracking the total cost of all cleaning and material products purchased during the performance period, plus the amortized cost for the ionized water cleaning system (amortized over 12 months). \n c) Tracking the total volume of cleaning and material products and ionized water used during the performance period and showing that 30% meets the existing IEQc3.3 criteria or is ionized tap water. Applicable internationally. "" " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "10204" "2012-07-01" "Existing Buildings, Schools - Existing Buildings, Retail - Existing Buildings" "The San Gabriel Valley Corporate Campus (SGVCC) is a multi-tenant office park located in a suburban area of Irwindale, CA. The property is pursuing LEED certification under EB:O&M version 2008. The project is attempting Sustainable Sites Credit 3 and seeks clarification and guidance from the USGBC in regards to Universal Notification for non-least toxic exterior pesticide applications. The property\'s pest control vendor has attempted to control a persistent rat population with least-toxic methods and mechanical controls which have proven to be ineffective. Monitoring blocks (sugar cubes) show daily rodent activity in the property\'s planter beds, loading dock areas and other exterior locations around the perimeter of the three building campus. Rodenticides are placed out for a few days, then removed and replaced with the monitoring blocks. Within a few days rodent activity is present again and tenants report evidence of rodents in the property\'s pest sighting log shortly after the rodenticide is removed. Page 17 of the EB 2009 Ref Guide states: ""Exterior pest management should focus on keeping the site\'s animal and insect pest populations under control and preventing pests from entering the building."" Keeping rats and mice under control at some properties requires more aggressive treatment than least toxic and monitoring regimes are able to achieve. It is not clear how to properly implement and document Universal Notification for these properties in either the v2008 or v2009 LEED EB Reference Guides. Issue #1: For exterior pesticide applications at multi-tenant properties in areas like loading docks and planter beds, it\'s not clear who the landlord should notify. Sending an e-mail to the individual occupants is infeasible. Most landlords will be unwilling to send weekly e-mails or hard copy notifications to every tenant\'s point-of-contact. In any case, these types of notifications to a single tenant contact are unlikely to reach the broader population of occupants. Signage or postings at the exterior treatment areas would seem to be the only effective option. Issue #2: For properties like SGVCC where controlling the rodent population is a constant struggle, it is not feasible for the property management team to post paper signage in exterior areas and then replace it on a daily or weekly basis ad infinitum. Permanent signage in exterior areas that require frequent treatment, supplemented with a detailed notification to tenants on a periodic basis, would seem to satisfy the Universal Notification requirement. However it\'s not clear from the Reference Guides if this would be acceptable. An example of the permanent signage could read: ""Caution, Non-Least Toxic Pesticides or Rodenticides May Be Applied in This Immediate Area. Please Contact Building Management at xxx-xxx-xxx for Chemical Information and Application Schedules"" We request that USGBC clarify the implementation guidance and submittal requirements for SSc3 related to Universal Notification for the circumstances at SGVCC. Because universal notification is a key portion of SSc3 and many EBOM projects attempt this credit, we ask that the USGBC consider publishing the technical response as a LEED Interpretation." "The use of non-least toxic pesticides or rodenticides as pest control in areas requiring frequent treatment on a permanent basis is not an acceptable strategy for this credit. Projects are encouraged to use integrated management methods and explore alternatives to chemical pesticides. If a building is located on a site in which integrated methods are unable to control pest populations, and non-least toxic pesticides are continuously applied to the site, this credit may not be achievable. Internationally applicable." "10111" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "5177" "2009-01-23" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Our building is a 114,000 sf food processing plant, with office space on one side of the building and process spaces and warehouses on the other. In order to fulfill the intent of this credit, all copy and maintenance rooms have hard ceilings and self-closing doors, and will be exhausted sufficiently to create negative pressure. Air filtration media will provide a MERV rating of 13. Walk-off mats will be installed at all regular entry points into the building, and a cleaning service will be contracted to replace the dirty mats and clean them off-site. We are asking whether the design and cleaning program of our 16 loading bays will comply with the requirements of this credit. To prevent contaminants from entering the building, our loading bay area has been designed with a continuous pit and vertical storing system for the loading docks. We use this design because it far exceeds traditional pit set-up both for cleanliness and thermal efficiency. Such a system differs from the norm for three reasons relevant to this credit: 1) The dock doors close all the way to the dock floor when not in use, preventing dirt and debris from entering. A tight seal is made between floor and door, further hindering pollutant entry. 2) The continuous pit - a space approximately 4ft deep between warehouse floor and bay door which runs the length of the dock bay area and is 18 inches lower than the warehouse floor - serves as a catch basin for dust or particulates coming into the building and allows for easy routine cleaning. 3) Vertical storing dock leveler design further supports easy routine pit cleaning and wash downs by remaining out of the way when not in use. We believe that the innovative design of our loading bays - coupled with the planned stringent cleaning program of this food-grade manufacturing plant - meets the intent of credit EQ 5. Please advise." "The project team is asking whether providing a continuous pit in the loading dock would meet the entryway system requirements of the credit. As described in this CIR, the loading dock entryways into the warehouse do not qualify as regular entry points for building users and thus do not need to be provided with entryway systems. The strategies employed by the project team to reduce indoor chemical and pollutant sources are commendable and encouraged but they are not required by this credit.\n\n **Update October 1, 2013: Applicable credits have been updated." "None" "None" "X"