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) "LEED Interpretation" "1981" "2008-02-27" "Existing Buildings" "The building we are attempting to certify is a state government residential building; hence the use of commercial-grade, concentrated cleaners requiring dilution is inappropriate and not desired. The manufacturers of the household cleaners (non-concentrates) currently in use at the residence have provided MSD sheets and letters confirming that they meet and/or exceed GS-37 requirements. In other words, they are all green, environmentally friendly cleaning products that meet the intent of the credit, in our opinion. We hope that USGBC accepts these products for the corresponding point(s)." "To meet MRc4\'s Sustainability Criteria A, cleaning products must be Green Seal GS-37 certified or establish equivalency via third-party verification. It is not enough for the Building Applicant to just submit a MSDS and a letter from the manufacturer that the cleaning products meet or exceed Green Seal GS-37 requirements. The Building Applicant must also provide documentation that summarizes and verifies on a point by point basis how the cleaning products meet or exceed the Green Seal GS-37 requirements. Building Applicants may only default to Sustainability Criteria B California Code of Regulations maximum allowable VOC level requirements for cleaning products not covered by GS-37 categories. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2068" "2008-04-01" "Existing Buildings" "We have registered a state government residence under the original version of LEED-EB. For MRc4 we would like to use a cleaning product line that has Environmental Choice certification (CCD-110,146 and 148) but not GS-37 certification. Since the new version of LEED-EB accepts Environmental Choice as a qualifying third-party verification standard, will you approve the substitution for our building certification?" "The following sustainable purchasing standards or criteria for cleaning materials and products, disposable janitorial paper products and trash bags are acceptable for documenting qualifying purchases on a cost basis to meet the LEED-EB v2.0 MRc4 sustainability criteria. Cleaning products: o Green Seal GS-37 for General-Purpose, Bathroom, Glass, and Carpet Cleaners Used for Industrial and Institutional Purposes. o Environmental Choice CCD-110 for Cleaning and Degreasing Compounds. o Environmental Choice CCD-146 for Hard surface Cleaners. o Environmental Choice CCD-148 for Carpet and Upholstery Care. If the above standards are not applicable for a specific product category (e.g., for products such as disinfectants, metal polish, floor finishes or strippers), products shall meet one or more of the following programs for the appropriate product category: o Green Seal GS-40 for Industrial and Institutional Floor-Care Products. o Environmental Choice CCD-112 for Digestion Additives for Cleaning and Odor Control. o Environmental Choice CCD-113 for Drain or Grease Traps Additives. o Environmental Choice CCD-115 for Odor Control Additives. o Environmental Choice CCD-147 for Hard Floor Care. o California Code of Regulations maximum allowable VOC levels for the specific product category. Disposable janitorial paper products and trash bags: o U.S. EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for Janitorial Paper and Plastic Trash Can Liners. o Green Seal GS-09 for Paper Towels and Napkins. o Green Seal GS-01 for Tissue Paper. o Environmental Choice CCD-082 for Toilet Tissue. o Environmental Choice CCD-086 for Hand Towels. Janitorial paper products derived from rapidly renewable resources or made from tree-free fibers. Applicable Internationally." "10301" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "2460" "2009-04-06" "Existing Buildings" "The project building proposes to earn credit toward EQ 3.4-3.6 by purchasing high density plastic trash can liners that contain less than 10% recycled content but also have a thickness of no more than 0.70 mils. This proposed exclusion to the EPA\'s procurement guidelines for plastic trash can liners is based on the principal of source reduction and the desire to minimize the project building\'s purchase of virgin plastic. The proposed guideline of 0.70 mils is based on the California Recycled Content Trash Bag Program outlined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 4, Article 5. While the EPA\'s procurement guidelines call for plastic trash can liners that contain a minimum 10% recycled content, it is impractical for liner manufacturers to produce a functional plastic trash liner which contains at least 10% recycled content but is also 0.77 mils thick or less. Major manufacturer\'s Heritage Bag, Pitt Plastics and Berry Plastics each produce bags with 10% recycled content, but the minimum thickness of these bags is 1.0 mil. These manufacturers have informed the project team that it is impractical to manufacture a thinner bag with 10% recycled content without compromising the tensile strength of the bag and consequently requiring ""double bagging"" in the field. From a source reduction standpoint, a 0.70 mil virgin bag contains 24% less virgin plastic than a 1.0 mil bag that contains 10% recycled content. The California Recycled Content Trash Bag Program requires trash liners to contain at least 10% recycled content, but the Board also provides an exclusion for liners with a thickness of 0.70 mils or below. Please clarify whether the US Green Building Council would allow the project building to earn credit toward EQ 3.4-3.6 for the purchase of high density plastic trash can liners that contain less than 10% recycled content but also have a thickness of no more than 0.70 mils." "In order to count towards EQ Credit 3.4-3.6, disposable plastic trash liners must contain at least 10% post-consumer recycled content. However, liners less than 0.70 mil in thickness can be excluded from the calculations (not being counted as a compliant or non-compliant purchase) . To exercise this exclusion, include information about the excluded product, including manufacturer documentation demonstrating thickness. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X" "LEED Interpretation" "5129" "2008-07-02" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Are data centers and telecom rooms considered non-regularly occupied rooms for the purposes of EQ5? This Credit Interpretation Request is in reference to a 92,000 square foot office building and research laboratory that includes a 5000 square foot data center. As part of the credit, we are required to provide air filtration with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 13 or better for all supply air serving regularly occupied spaces. The 5000 sqft data center and associated telecom rooms house data equipment and power distribution equipment. The data center does not include support areas, offices, cubicles, chairs, desks, etc. We are proposing to air condition the data center with floor mounted computer room air conditioning units. These air conditioning units are typically not furnished with MERV 13 filtration. The Reference Manual does not clearly define \'regularly occupied spaces\' in the chapter on \'Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control\'. Regularly occupied spaces are defined in the chapter on \'Day Light and Views\', EQ Credit 8.1. The definitions at the end of this chapter define regularly occupied spaces as where workers are seated or standing as they work inside a building. Non-regularly occupied spaces include corridors, hallways, lobbies, storage rooms, kitchens, restrooms, stairwells, etc. Non-occupied spaces include rooms used by maintenance personnel that are not open for use by occupants. Non-occupied spaces include janitorial, storage and equipment rooms. We believe that this data center and the telecom rooms are equipment type rooms and are not regularly occupied. There are not any seats or desks in the data center. The data center is used by personnel for computer maintenance and upgrades. Kitchens, copy rooms, and break rooms are in the non-regularly occupied category. These rooms are used more extensively than the data center. Please confirm that MERV 13 filters are not required for air-conditioning units serving the data center and telecom rooms and that this approach will meet the requirements of EQ Credit 5." "Can a data center that does not include any support areas, offices, cubicles, chairs, or desks be considered a non-regularly occupied space for the purpose of EQc5 calculations? Yes, as described this space is not intended to house any people during an average workday and may be considered a non-regularly occupied space. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X" "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" "LEED Interpretation" "5219" "2009-05-20" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "Our project is a large destination resort, with hotel and timeshare components. For all the frequently used entry locations, except these ones explained below, we will provide either permanently installed grate products or removable mats (with documented maintenance regimen) of the required dimensions. Our questions address entryway systems at the following two specific entrance locations. Location 1: Beachfront restaurant: The dining areas for a freestanding beachfront restaurant are under cover and open-air without enclosing walls on three sides, with the wall of the enclosed kitchen on the fourth side. The floor surface in some areas is beach sand; in others it is sandstone, basalt and limestone. Entryways between the adjacent hardscape, beach areas and lawn, and the dining areas, extend along much of the perimeter of the dining areas. Because of the indoor-outdoor character of the dining areas, open access along the perimeter, and the sand flooring, we propose not to include an entryway system between the dining areas and the ""outside,\' and we propose to include the required entryway system between the dining areas and the kitchen to keep sand and other particles from being brought into the kitchen. Is this approach acceptable? Location 2: Meeting room area: The resort includes a small conference center which is a pavilion within a courtyard accessible only through the public areas of the hotel. The courtyard includes covered hardscape walkways and uncovered landscaped and hardscaped areas. Because the courtyard and the conference center are accessible only through the public areas of the hotel, entrances to which have compliant entryway systems, is it acceptable not to have entryway systems at the doorways between the covered exterior walkways and the meeting rooms that comprise the conference center?" "The applicant is asking if the two areas described above can be exempted from the entry way system requirements of this credit. For Location 1 as described above, it appears as though this area does not qualify as a regular entry to the building, because the occupied area described is open to the outdoors and not a fully enclosed building area. Therefore, Location 1 is exempt from the entry way system requirement. For Location 2 as described above, it appears as though this area is a regular entry to the building as occupants pass between open air, exposed areas (covered walkways) before entering the enclosed meeting rooms. Therefore this space would require the entry way systems as described in the credit language." "None" "None" "LEED Interpretation" "5404" "2009-07-29" "Existing Buildings" "The building management team is planning to implement a LEED-EB compliant green cleaning program that includes the purchase of compliant cleaning chemicals. The building management team is considering using the Procter and Gamble cleaning products listed below, and has requested from Procter and Gamble documentation from a third party testing laboratory that summarizes and verifies on a point by point basis how each of the listed Procter and Gamble cleaning products meets or exceeds the requirements of the applicable standard for each chemical (Green Seal GS-37 or CARB VOC). Once we have this documentation in hand for each of these cleaning chemicals so it is available to submit with the certification application for our building, will these be considered compliant chemicals for the LEED-EB Sustainable Cleaning Products and Materials calculations? General Purpose Cleaners Covered by GS-37: Mr. Clean Finished Floor Cleaner, Spic and Span Liquid Cleaner, PGPL Heavy Duty Spray Cleaner Disinfects Covered by CARB VOC: Spic & Span Disinfecting All-Purpose Spray & Glass Disinfectant, Comet Disinfecting Bathroom Cleaner, PGPL Daily Sanitizing Restroom Cleaner, PGPL Disinfectant Floor Cleaner, Comet Disinfecting Cleaner with Bleach, Mr. Clean Toilet Bowl Cleaner/Restroom Disinfectant, Clean Quick Broad Range Quaternary Sanitizer, PGPL Carpet Extraction Cleaner Sanitizer Floor Finishes Covered by CARB VOC: PG ProLine Super Durable Finish, PG ProLine All Around Finish, PG ProLine Spray Buff and Mop-on Maintainer Floor Strippers Covered by CARB VOC: PGPL Floor Stripper Carpet Cleaners Covered by CARB VOC: PGPL Bonnet/Traffic Lane Cleaner, PGPL General Use Carpet Spot Remover, PGPL Tannin Spot Carpet Spot Remover" "It is acceptable to provide 3rd-party assessment demonstrating compliance with the LEED green product certification criteria, providing that the testing performed assesses all aspects of the applicable standard and is performed in accordance with the testing protocols employed by the cited standard. The burden of demonstrating equivalency to the cited standards and testing protocols is the responsibility of the project team. Additionally, many of the products listed above seem to inappropriately be classified as covered by CARB VOC limits when Green Seal GS-37 criteria would apply. Most general purpose cleaners, restroom cleaners, carpet cleaners, and glass cleaners are expected to fall under the GS-37 criteria. Reverting to the less robust CCR (California Code of Regulations) classification to avoid testing against GS-37 criteria is not appropriate for any product that falls under GS-37 based on the definitions provided under Section 2 of that standard. For example, GS-37 defines glass cleaners as ""products used to clean windows, glass, dry erase boards, and mirrored surfaces."" Any product used in the project building in that capacity must be tested against the GS-37 criteria for glass cleaners. It is the responsibility of the project team to justify that GS-37 criteria do not apply for all products for which the less robust CARB VOC is used. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"