Stocking Hall-Cornell University

Transcription

1 LEED Certification Review Report This report contains the results of the technical review of an application for LEED certification submitted for the specified project. LEED certification is an official recognition that a project complies with the requirements prescribed within the LEED rating systems as created and maintained by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC ). The LEED certification program is administered by the Green Business Certification Inc. (GBCI ). Stocking Hall-Cornell University Project ID Rating system & version LEED-NC v2009 Project registration date 09/10/2009 Certified (Gold) CERTIFIED: 40-49, SILV ER: 50-59, GOLD: 60-79, PLATINUM: 80+ LEED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS (V2009) ATTEMPTED: 72, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 72 OF 110 POINTS SUSTAINABLE SITES 19 OF 26 SSp1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Y SSc1 Site Selection 1 / 1 SSc2 Development Density and Community Connectivity 5 / 5 SSc3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 / 1 SSc4.1Alternative Transportation-Public Transportation Access 6 / 6 SSc4.2Alternative Transportation-Bicycle Storage and Changing Room 1 / 1 SSc4.3Alternative Transportation-Low-Emitting and Fuel-Efficient V 0 / 3 SSc4.4Alternative Transportation-Parking Capacity 2 / 2 SSc5.1Site Development-Protect or Restore Habitat 0 / 1 SSc5.2Site Development-Maximize Open Space 1 / 1 SSc6.1Stormwater Design-Quantity Control 0 / 1 SSc6.2Stormwater Design-Quality Control 0 / 1 SSc7.1Heat Island Effect-Non-Roof 1 / 1 SSc7.2Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 / 1 SSc8 Light Pollution Reduction 0 / 1 WATER EFFICIENCY 6 OF 10 WEp1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction Y WEc1 Water Efficient Landscaping 4 / 4 WEc2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 0 / 2 WEc3 Water Use Reduction 2 / 4 ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE 23 OF 35 EAp1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Y EAp2 Minimum Energy Performance Y EAp3 Fundamental Refrigerant Mgmt Y EAc1 Optimize Energy Performance 19 / 19 EAc2 On-Site Renewable Energy 0 / 7 EAc3 Enhanced Commissioning 2 / 2 EAc4 Enhanced Refrigerant Mgmt 2 / 2 EAc5 Measurement and Verification 0 / 3 EAc6 Green Power 0 / 2 MATERIALS AND RESOURCES 7 OF 14 MRp1 Storage and Collection of Recyclables Y MRc1.1Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 0 / 3 MRc1.2Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior 0 / 1 MRc2 Construction Waste Mgmt 2 / 2 MRc3 Materials Reuse 0 / 2 MRc4 Recycled Content 2 / 2 MATERIALS AND RESOURCES CONTINUED MRc5 Regional Materials 2 / 2 MRc6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 0 / 1 MRc7 Certified Wood 1 / 1 INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 9 OF 15 IEQp1 Minimum IAQ Performance Y IEQp2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Y IEQc1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 / 1 IEQc2 Increased Ventilation 0 / 1 IEQc3.1Construction IAQ Mgmt Plan-During Construction 1 / 1 IEQc3.2Construction IAQ Mgmt Plan-Before Occupancy 1 / 1 IEQc4.1Low-Emitting Materials-Adhesives and Sealants 1 / 1 IEQc4.2Low-Emitting Materials-Paints and Coatings 1 / 1 IEQc4.3Low-Emitting Materials-Flooring Systems 1 / 1 IEQc4.4Low-Emitting Materials-Composite Wood and Agrifiber Products 1 / 1 IEQc5 Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control 0 / 1 IEQc6.1Controllability of Systems-Lighting 1 / 1 IEQc6.2Controllability of Systems-Thermal Comfort 0 / 1 IEQc7.1Thermal Comfort-Design 1 / 1 IEQc7.2Thermal Comfort-Verification 0 / 1 IEQc8.1Daylight and Views-Daylight 0 / 1 IEQc8.2Daylight and Views-Views 0 / 1 INNOVATION IN DESIGN 5 OF 6 IDc1.1 Green Cleaning 1 / 1 IDc1.1 Innovation in Design 0 / 1 IDc1.2 SSc4.1 Public Transit Exemplary Performance 1 / 1 IDc1.2 Innovation in Design 0 / 1 IDc1.3 Innovation in Design 0 / 1 IDc1.3 Green Building Education 1 / 1 IDc1.4 Innovation in Design 0 / 1 IDc1.4 30% Recycled Content_Clarifications 1 / 1 IDc1.5 Innovation in Design 0 / 1 IDc1.5 Innovation in Design 0 / 1 IDc2 LEED Accredited Professional 1 / 1 REGIONAL PRIORITY CREDITS 3 OF 4 SSc3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 / 1 SSc6.1 Stormwater Design-Quantity Control 0 / 1 SSc7.1 Heat Island Effect-Non-Roof 1 / 1 SSc7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 / 1 EAc2 On-Site Renewable Energy 0 / 1 MRc1.1Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 0 / 1 TOTAL 72 OF 110

2 CREDIT DETAILS Project Information Forms PIf1: Minimum Program Requirements Approved 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Project Information Form has been submitted stating that the project complies with all Minimum Program Requirements. The project Owner has signed the form as required. The project is located in Ithaca, NY. Please note that an updated version of this form is available which includes the required MPR 6 energy and water usage sharing information/options. Project teams may request a form upgrade through the feedback button in LEED Online v3. Please include the specific project information form, project number, project name, and rating system when requesting an upgrade. Alternatively, the updated form may be downloaded via the Sample Forms Download link within LEED Online and uploaded to this prerequisite. The revised form may be provided during review or the project team may determine a compliance path when the certification process is complete. PIf2: Project Summary Details Approved 10/14/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW The LEED Project Information Form has been revised to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review comments and states that the total gross square footage is 130, with 81, square feet currently undergoing initial fit-out and 49, square feet currently undergoing renovation. The project is 62.34% new construction and 37.66% renovation. The building area to site area ratio is 83.96%. A response narrative and revised floor plans have been provided. 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Project Information Form has been submitted including the following project summary details. There is one building in this LEED-NC application with a total of four stories and 134, gross square feet. The building was originally constructed in 1923 with 85, square feet currently undergoing initial fit-out and 49, square feet currently undergoing renovation. The project is 63.43% new construction and 36.57% renovation. The total site area within the LEED-NC project boundary is 155, square feet and the building area to site area ratio is 86.46%. There are zero parking spaces available to the occupants, three floors above grade and one floor below grade (excluding parking levels). The site was previously developed. The building uses energy from district or campus heating and district or campus cooling and uses water from a municipal potable water system. The sewage is conveyed to a municipal sewer system. The total project budget is $105,000,000. However, the project scope has been revised per the floor plans provided under the Clarifications tab in LEED Online. TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please provide a revised form with project summary details that are consistent with the updated floor plans in the Clarifications tab. PIf3: Occupant and Usage Data Approved 10/14/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW The LEED Project Information Form has been revised to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review comments and indicates that Table PIf3-1 has been revised per the clarifications provided in LEED Online. The form states that the average users value is 446, the peak users value is 446, and the FTE value is 106. A response narrative and revised floor plans have been provided. 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Project Information Form has been submitted including the following occupant and usage data. The occupant is a university and an occupant type that consists primarily of core learning spaces. The building is intended to be owner-managed after project completion. The average users value is 463, the peak users value is 463, the FTE value is 123, and the building is occupied 270 days per year. However, the project scope has been revised per the floor plans provided under the Clarifications tab in LEED Online. TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please revise the form as necessary with occupant and usage data that are consistent with the updated floor plans in the Clarifications tab.

3 PIf4: Schedule and Overview Documents Approved 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Project Information Form has been submitted including the design and construction schedule, the estimated date of substantial construction completion is noted as June 1, 2014, and the estimated date of occupancy is noted as August 1, The following required documents have been uploaded: exterior renderings, interior drawings, floor plans, building sections, a site plan, mechanical schedule, and mechanical drawings. Additionally, the building systems narrative and the project narrative have been provided. Revised floor plans have been provided under the Clarifications tab in LEED Online.

4 Sustainable Sites SSp1: Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Awarded 09/30/2016 CONSTRUCTION FINAL REVIEW The additional documentation demonstrates compliance. 07/07/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that the project has implemented an erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan that conforms to the 2003 EPA Construction General Permit (CGP). However, to demonstrate compliance, the following must be addressed. TECHNICAL ADVICE 1. Provide the periodic inspection log, date-stamped photographs, and/or a more detailed narrative to confirm that the ESC plan was implemented appropriately. Ensure that the documentation confirms the implemented measures, the frequency of inspections, and includes information regarding any corrective actions taken. 2. It is unclear if the ESC plan includes the proper measures for the prevention of air pollution (dust and particulate matter). Provide a revised ESC plan and supporting documentation that includes detailed information describing the measures taken for the prevention of polluting the air with dust and particulate matter. SSc1: Site Selection Awarded: 1 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the project site does not meet any of the prohibited criteria. SSc2: Development Density and Community Connectivity POSSIBLE POINTS: 5 ATTEMPTED: 5, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 5 Awarded: 5 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the project complies with Option 2 and the site is located within one-half-mile of a minimum of ten basic community services and a minimum of one residential district (with a minimum density of ten units per acre). The project site condition is noted as previously developed with existing infrastructure. A scaled area plan showing the one-half-mile radius, the locations of the basic services, and the residential district has been provided. SSc3: Brownfield Redevelopment Awarded: 1 07/07/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that the project has documented asbestos contamination in the building. Remediation of the asbestos has been or will be remediated as part of the project scope according to an acceptable standard. SSc4.1: Alternative Transportation-Public Transportation Access POSSIBLE POINTS: 6 ATTEMPTED: 6, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 6 Awarded: 6 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the project complies with Option 2 and is served by multiple bus lines within one quarter mile walking distance of the project site. A scaled map showing the location of the transit stops has been provided The LEED Credit Form indicates that the project is pursuing the Exemplary Performance option for this credit and that the project reserves one point within the Innovation and Design Credit category for this strategy.

5 SSc4.2: Alternative Transportation- Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms Awarded: 1 10/16/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been revised to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review comments and a response narrative has been provided stating that sufficient bicycle storage and shower facilities have been provided to serve the LEED-NC project occupants and occupants of the attached building. Revised floor plans have been provided. The documentation demonstrates credit compliance. 06/13/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the project includes commercial / institutional spaces and that bicycle storage facilities have been provided to serve 10.8% of the LEED-NC project FTE and transient occupants, measured at peak occupancy, and shower facilities have been provided for 1.63% of the LEED-NC project FTE occupants. Bicycle storage facilities must be provided for at least 5% of project FTE and transient occupants, and shower facilities must be provided for at least 0.5% of FTE project occupants. Plans have been provided showing the location of the bicycle storage and shower facilities. However, it appears that the bicycle storage and shower facilities will be shared with occupants in the neighboring buildings. In order to meet the requirements of this credit, the use of bicycle storage and shower facilities must be exclusive to occupants for the LEED-NC project or a sufficient quantity of bicycle storage and shower facilities must be provided for all occupants with access to the amenities. TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please provide additional documentation, such as photographs of installed signage or a statement signed by the building/property Owner or Manager, to verify that the use of the bicycle storage and shower facilities are exclusive to the occupants of this LEED-NC project. Alternatively, provide supplemental calculations which confirm that sufficient bicycle storage and shower facilities have been provided to serve all occupants with access to the amenities, including individuals who are not part of this LEED-NC project. SSc4.3: Alternative Transportation-Low- Emitting and Fuel-Efficient Vehicles POSSIBLE POINTS: 3 SSc4.4: Alternative Transportation- Parking Capacity POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 ATTEMPTED: 2, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 2 Awarded: 2 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that no new parking has been created within the LEED-NC project scope of work. The project Owner has signed the form as required. SSc5.1: Site Development-Protect or Restore Habitat SSc5.2: Site Development-Maximize Open Space Awarded: 1 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the project site does not have local zoning regulations; therefore, the project complies with Case 2. 74, square feet of open space has been provided which is more than the footprint of the LEED-NC building (69, square feet). Additionally, 53.93% of this dedicated open space is vegetated. A minimum area of open space equal to the footprint of the LEED-NC building is required and at least 25% of that dedicated open space must be vegetated. The vegetated roof and pedestrian hardscape have been included in the calculations of this credit. SSc2: Development Density and Community Connectivity has been earned as required. The calculations do not include wetlands or naturally designed ponds. The project Owner has signed the form as required. A site plan highlighting the dedicated open space has been provided.

6 SSc6.1: Stormwater Design-Quantity Control SSc6.2: Stormwater Design-Quality Control SSc7.1: Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof Awarded: 1 07/07/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that the project complies with Option 1 and 61% of nonroof base building hardscape surfaces will be mitigated through the use of materials with an SRI of at least 29. SSc7.2: Heat Island Effect-Roof Awarded: 1 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the weighted average roof area for the combined SRI compliant and vegetated roofing surfaces is greater than or equal to the total base building roof area therefore the project complies with Option 3. The table listing the compliant SRI roofing materials and the vegetated roof area, a roof plan, and manufacturer documentation for the installed roofing materials have been provided as required. SSc8: Light Pollution Reduction

7 Water Efficiency WEp1: Water Use Reduction-20% Reduction Awarded 06/13/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Prerequisite Form and water use calculations have been provided stating that the potable water usage in the project has been reduced by 31% from a calculated baseline design. A minimum reduction of 20% is required. A plumbing fixture schedule and manufacturers documentation have been provided. It is noted that the calculations for the total daily uses of water closets for the Staff group (26 uses) assume that male occupants have access to urinals. When the total daily uses is revised to 39 uses assuming that male occupants use water closets three times per day, the project has demonstrated a reduction in potable water use of 31%. Compliance is not affected. WEc1: Water Efficient Landscaping Awarded: 4 POSSIBLE POINTS: 4 ATTEMPTED: 4, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 4 06/13/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the landscaping does not utilize permanent irrigation systems and that all temporary irrigation systems used for plant establishment will be removed within one year of installation. The project team Owner has signed the form as required. Landscape plans and the narrative describing how the landscape has been designed for no irrigation have been provided. WEc2: Innovative Wastewater Technologies POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 WEc3: Water Use Reduction Awarded: 2 POSSIBLE POINTS: 4 ATTEMPTED: 2, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 2 06/13/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form and water use calculations have been provided stating that the potable water usage in the project has been reduced by 31% from the calculated baseline design fixture performance. A minimum reduction of 30% is required.

8 Energy and Atmosphere EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Awarded 09/30/2016 CONSTRUCTION FINAL REVIEW The additional documentation demonstrates compliance. 07/07/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that the commissioning report is pending completion and a contract is in place to ensure that the report will be completed. However, to demonstrate compliance, the following must be addressed. TECHNICAL ADVICE 1. The documentation within IEQc3.2: Construction IAQ Management Plan Before Occupancy indicates that the project received a certificate of occupancy for Phase II on May 1, 2015 and it is unclear as to why the commissioning process has not been completed. Provide a narrative and the completed commissioning report to confirm all fundamental commissioning activities have been completed. EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance Awarded 11/12/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW The LEED Prerequisite Form has been revised to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review and states that the project has achieved an energy cost savings of 48.73% using the ASHRAE Appendix G methodology. Revised supporting documentation has been provided including a narrative response to Preliminary Review comments, updated simulation input and output summary files, lighting calculations, DES calculations, DES narrative, and a revised Table 1.4. Sufficient information has been provided to address most of the issues raised in the Preliminary Review. However, three issues remain outstanding. For future submittals, please upload a summary document that includes a narrative response to each Final Review comment, and a narrative describing any additional changes made to the energy models between review phases. OUTSTANDING ISSUES: 1. (Preliminary Review Item #8) The simulation output reports SV-A indicate that the total Baseline outdoor air rate 73,705 cfm and the total Proposed outdoor air rate 125,742 cfm are not consistent with the total Baseline and Proposed outdoor airflows 68,460 cfm reported in Table 1.4 and a total of 61,868 cfm as reported in IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance. Additionally, the Baseline and Proposed outdoor air rates have not been modeled identically using the Proposed Case rates as required. In this instance, since the Proposed Case outdoor air rate is greater than the Baseline Case outdoor air rate, the approach is conservative, and compliance is not affected. For future submittals, please revise the Baseline and Proposed Case outdoor air rates to be consistent with the design documents and IEQp1, and update Table 1.4 to reflect the actual Baseline and Proposed outdoor air rate used in each energy model. Provide simulation output report SV-A for each Baseline and Proposed Case system to confirm correct modeling. 2. (Preliminary Review Comment #10) Table 1.4 states that the Proposed Case heating plant efficiency has been modeled as 44%, whereas the historical data indicates that the overall annual heating plant efficiency is 40%. Partial credit has been awarded by setting the Proposed Case heating plant efficiency equal to 40% and recalculating the Proposed Case Space Heating and Service Water Heating energy usage [(34,333 therms+435 therms)*0.44 / 0.40)]. For future submittals, ensure that the Proposed Case heating plant efficiency is modeled consistently with the actual heating plant operating efficiency as indicated in the historical plant data. Revise the Proposed Case as necessary, update Table 1.4 to reflect all changes, and provide updated simulation output report PV-A for the Proposed Case. 3. (Preliminary Review Comment #11) The exceptional calculation narrative states that the Proposed Case has been modeled with a 44% efficient natural gas boiler to mimic the central plant providing steam. However, the historical plant data indicates that the overall annual heating plant efficiency is 40%. Partial credit has been awarded by recalculating the industrial process natural gas savings using a heating plant efficiency of 44% (21,942.6 therms * 0.44 / 0.40). For future submittals, revise the annual heating plant efficiency used in the exceptional calculations to be consistent with the historical heating plant data. Provide updated exceptional calculations, and update Table EAp2-7. Due to these issues, the annual Baseline energy consumption is 2,431,979 kwh/year of electricity, and 163,580 therms/year of natural gas, with a Baseline energy cost of $284,745/year. The revised Proposed energy consumption is 977,356 kwh/year of electricity, and 119,168 therms/year of natural gas, with a revised Proposed energy cost of $151,851/year. This leads to a total percentage improvement of 46.67%, which meets prerequisite requirements. The total predicted annual energy consumption for the project is 977,356 kwh/year of electricity, and 119,168 therms/year of natural gas.

9 Please note that a new Section 1.4 input file has been developed and is available to project teams ( This new input file is not required to be used for this project, but will be required to be used for all projects registered after September 30, Project teams are encouraged to begin using this file before the required date. 06/27/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Prerequisite Form and supporting documentation have been provided stating that the project is new construction and therefore complies with Option 1. The form is stating that the project has achieved an energy cost savings of 32.99% using the ASHRAE Appendix G methodology. A minimum energy cost savings of 10% is required for all new construction projects. The project team Architect, Mechanical Engineer, and Electrical Engineer have signed the form as required. Energy efficiency measures incorporated into the building design include an improved thermal envelope, high efficiency glazing, reduced interior lighting power density, occupancy sensors, and variable speed pumping. However, the following twelve review comments requiring a project response (marked as Mandatory) must be addressed for the Final Review. For the remaining review comments (marked as Optional), a project response is optional. Please upload a summary document that includes a narrative response to each Preliminary Review comment and a narrative describing any additional changes made to the energy models between the Preliminary and Final Review phases TECHNICAL ADVICE: REVIEW COMMENTS REQUIRING A PROJECT RESPONSE (Mandatory): 1. The narrative indicates that a building simulation for both Option 1 and Option 2 of the Treatment of District of Campus Thermal Energy Guide were performed and submitted. e that according to the Treatment of District of Campus Thermal Energy Guide, each project team using energy models must choose only one of the performance options to show compliance with both EAp2 and EAc1. In this instance, it appears that Supplemental Table 1.4 includes the parameters for Option 1; therefore, the submission was evaluated for Option 1 and the energy consumption and cost values indicated 2013_02_19_070234_EAp2_Option1. Additionally, note that when modeling combined heat and power systems, Option 2 must be utilized. Please provide a detailed narrative confirming which DES option has been modeled. Please note that there are new free resources available to all registered projects that may be helpful in developing high-quality EAp2/EAc1 submittals. These free resources include a webinar titled: EA Credit 1: Successful Implementation Beyond Baseline Performance; and a modeling guidance document titled: Advanced Energy Modeling for LEED Technical Manual. Projects can access these resources under the EAp2/EAc1 Credit Resources section in both versions of LEED Online. Although not required, all projects are encouraged to take advantage of these free resources since they may be helpful in achieving the prerequisite and credit. 2. The Baseline input information ( Stocking BPar1, Stocking BPar2, Stocking PPar1, and Stocking PPar2) has been provided in a file format which is unsupported by LEED Online (SIM). Please provide the Baseline and Proposed Case input parameters in one of the following file formats which are currently supported by LEED Online: DOC, PDF, ZIP, JPG, or XLS. Screen shots of the simulation inputs may also be provided if necessary. 3. It is unclear if the Baseline and Proposed virtual rates for steam and chilled water are determined in accordance with Section of the Treatment of District Campus Thermal Energy Guide. For example, according to reviewer calculations, the Baseline and Proposed virtual rate for chilled water is $0.06/ton-hour whereas the virtual rate for chilled water is reported as $0.2/ton-hour according to Table EAp2-3. Provide detailed calculations to confirm that the Baseline and Proposed virtual rates for steam and chilled water are determined in accordance with Section Revise the Baseline and Proposed models, and update Table EAp2-3 as necessary. Provide simulation output report ES-D for the Baseline and Proposed Case. 4. Supplemental Table 1.4 indicates that occupancy sensors are modeled in both the Baseline and Proposed Case. It is unclear, however, where occupancy sensors have been included and how these were modeled in the Baseline and Proposed energy models. Ensure that credit is not taken where occupancy sensors are required in accordance with Section and indicate where occupancy sensor controls are modeled for credit (if any), verifying that this credit aligns with ASHRAE Table G3.2 and is only applied to fixtures controlled by occupant sensors. For spaces that are required to have occupancy sensors by ASHRAE Section , verify that they have been modeled appropriately in the Baseline Case. Revise the Baseline and Proposed Case models, the form, and supporting documentation as necessary. 5. Table 1.4 indicates that the Baseline Case fan air flow rates were not sized based on a 20 degree F supply-air-toroom-air temperature difference for each Baseline system. Update the model as necessary, provide input summary reports showing that the Baseline Case air flow rates were sized based on a 20 degree F supply-air-to-room-air temperature difference per G , update Supplemental Table 1.4 to reflect the total Baseline Case air flow, and update the form as necessary to reflect any changes made. 6. It is unclear whether the Baseline Case fan power was modeled in accordance with ASHRAE Section G If necessary, revise the sum of the design supply, return, exhaust and relief fans for each Baseline HVAC system to be equal to the power calculated in G where CFM refers to the design supply CFM. If the energy simulation tool used for the analysis calculates this Baseline fan power value automatically, manually check the outputs for each system against equation G to verify that the fans have been modeled appropriately. Indicate any pressure adjustments reflected in the fan power calculations. Report the total fan power in the Supplemental

10 Table 1.4, update the energy models and form as necessary, and provide simulation output report SV-A for each Baseline system. Additionally, it is unclear how the Baseline pressure drop adjustments were calculated. Ensure that the pressure drop adjustments are taken in accordance with Table B, and provide a detailed narrative that lists the specific pressure credit claimed for each Baseline system. Provide additional documentation for each of the pressure credits claimed, such as mechanical drawings, which clear show these features in the as-designed building. As necessary, update Table 1.4 and the model to reflect revised fan powers. 7. Table 1.4 indicates that Section exception (C) has been taken for LabSys7 and LabSys7T. However, it is unclear if the Fume Hood Exhaust Exception Deduction has been taken from Table B as required. Provide a detailed narrative confirming that the Fume Hood Exhaust Exception Deduction has been taken, update the Baseline energy model, and revise Table 1.4 as necessary. 8. It is unclear whether the minimum outside air rates (in CFM) were modeled identically in the Baseline and Proposed Case for all zones not having Demand Control Ventilation in the Proposed Case. Confirm that the minimum outside airflow (in units of cfm) was modeled identically in the Baseline and Proposed Case using the Proposed Case rates. Additionally, verify that all systems in both the Baseline and Proposed Case are modeled with zero outside air flow when fans are cycled on to meet unoccupied setback temperatures unless health or safety regulations mandate an alternate minimum flow during unoccupied periods (in which Case, the unoccupied outside air rates should be modeled identically in the Baseline and Proposed Case). Provide simulation output report SV-A for each Baseline and Proposed system. 9. Insufficient information is provided in Supplemental Table 1.4 regarding VAV reheat terminal units. Section G requires that the minimum volume setpoints for the VAV reheat terminal units are modeled at 0.4 cfm per square feet, unless this reduces the outside air rate below the minimum value. Provide additional information in Table 1.4 regarding how the VAV reheat terminal units in the Baseline Case were modeled, provide input reports to verify that this has been correctly modeled, and make any revisions to the model as necessary. 10. It is unclear whether the Proposed Case HVAC system was modeled as designed because the Table 1.4 inputs are unreadable and the Proposed simulation reports were not provided in a readable format. Table G3.1#10(b)(Proposed) requires that the model be consistent with the design documents. Update model as necessary so that all HVAC system parameters (e.g. fan volumes, fan powers, efficiencies, heating/cooling capacities, etc.) are consistent with the design documents, update Supplemental Table 1.4 to reflect all changes made, and update the form as necessary to reflect any changes made. Provide simulation output report SV-A for each Baseline system. 11. The exceptional calculations narrative states that the energy efficiency measures for energy efficiency refrigeration equipment, combined heat and power, and industrial process have modeled using the Exceptional Calculation methodology. However, the exceptional calculations savings for these measures have been applied to the Option 2 submission. As stated in Review Item #1, each project team using energy models must choose only one of the performance options to show compliance with both EAp2 and EAc1. In this instance, it appears that Supplemental Table 1.4 includes the parameters for Option 1; therefore, the submission was evaluated for Option 1 and the energy consumption and cost values indicated 2013_02_19_070234_EAp2_Option1. Revise the exceptional calculations to be included in the Option 1 methodology. Provide a detailed narrative and calculations describing all Baseline and Proposed Case assumptions included for these measures as well as the calculation methodology used to determine the projected savings. The narrative and energy savings should be reported separately from the other efficiency measures in Section Table EAp2-7. The Baseline Case description should verify that the manufacturing equipment installed is not standard practice for a similar newly constructed facility by referencing a recently published document, utility program that incentivizes the equipment installed, or by documenting systems used to perform the same function in other newly constructed facilities. The Baseline system type described should also have the same output capacity as the Proposed system type modeled. 12. The narrative indicates that the building is served with a combined heat and power system. It is unclear if the methodology used to model the combined heat and power system is consistent with the guidelines detailed in Appendix D of the Treatment of District of Campus Thermal Energy Guide. Provide a detailed narrative describing the methodology used to model the combined heat and power system, and indicate all assumptions and parameters utilized. Provide simulation output report PV-A for the Baseline and Proposed Case. EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management Awarded 11/12/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW The LEED Prerequisite Form has been revised to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review comments and states that there are no CFC-based refrigerants in the HVAC systems which serve the LEED-NC project. A response narrative citing LEED Interpretation has been provided. The documentation demonstrates prerequisite compliance. For future submittals, please note that LEED Interpretation was updated on October 13, 2013 and now requires all refrigeration equipment that is part of the scope of work and having more than 0.5 pounds of refrigerant is included in the EAc4 analysis, regardless of the percentage of overall HVAC capacity. 06/26/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW

11 The LEED Prerequisite Form has been provided stating that there are no CFC-based refrigerants in the HVAC systems which serve the LEED-NC project. However, it is unclear if all mechanical cooling equipment serving the project building has been included in Table L-2. For example, the mechanical schedules indicate that the ventilation equipment serves a room named Freezers 256E. Please note that existing small HVAC units (defined as containing less than 0.5 pounds of refrigerant) and other equipment, such as standard refrigerators, small water coolers, and any other equipment that contains less than 0.5 pounds of refrigerant, are not considered part of the base building system and are not subject to the requirements of EAp3. Revise the form to include all mechanical cooling equipment with at least 0.5 pounds of refrigerant that serves the project building. TECHNCIAL ADVICE: Please revise the form to include all equipment containing 0.5 pounds of refrigerant or more, as required. EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance 9 ATTEMPTED: 19, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 19 Awarded: 19 11/12/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW Additional documentation has been provided for EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance claiming an energy cost savings of 48.73%. However, when EAp2 was recalculated based on the issues noted there, the project has demonstrated an energy cost savings of 46.67%. The documentation demonstrates credit compliance. 06/26/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form and supporting documentation have been provided stating that the project is new construction and has achieved an energy cost savings of 32.99% using the ASHRAE Appendix G methodology. A minimum energy cost savings of 12% is required for all new construction projects. However, EAp2: Minimum Energy Performance is denied pending clarifications. TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please see the comments within EAp2 and resubmit this credit. EAc2: On-Site Renewable Energy POSSIBLE POINTS: 7 EAc3: Enhanced Commissioning Awarded: 2 POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 ATTEMPTED: 2, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 2 09/30/2016 CONSTRUCTION FINAL REVIEW The additional documentation demonstrates compliance. 07/07/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that enhanced commissioning has been implemented. However, to demonstrate compliance, the following must be addressed. TECHNICAL ADVICE 1. Refer to the comments within EAp1: Fundamental Commissioning of Building Energy Systems and resubmit this credit. EAc4: Enhanced Refrigerant Management Awarded: 2 POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 ATTEMPTED: 2, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 2 11/12/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW The clarifications for EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management have been provided to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review comments. The documentation demonstrates credit compliance. It is noted that the calculations include equipment served by the district plant and the lake source free cooling system. However, the Refrigerant Impact Calculations may only include refrigerant-containing equipment. In this instance, this issue was not identified in the previous round of review; therefore, compliance is not affected. For future submittals, please ensure that the refrigerant impact calculations include only HVAC equipment which contains

12 refrigerant. 06/27/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Credit Form has been provided stating that the project selected refrigerants and HVACR systems that minimize or eliminate the emission of compounds that contribute to ozone depletion and global climate change. Additionally, all fire suppression systems in the LEED-NC project do not use ozone-depleting substances including CFCs, HCFCs, or halons. The refrigerant impact calculation indicates that the total refrigerant impact of the LEED-NC project is 22 per ton, which is less than the maximum allowable value of 100. However, EAp3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management is denied pending clarifications. TECHNICAL ADVICE: Please see the comments within EAp3 and resubmit this credit. EAc5: Measurement and Verification POSSIBLE POINTS: 3 EAc6: Green Power POSSIBLE POINTS: 2

13 Materials and Resources MRp1: Storage and Collection of Recyclables Awarded 06/12/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Prerequisite Form has been provided stating that the project has provided appropriately sized dedicated areas for the collection and storage of materials for recycling, including cardboard, paper, plastic, glass, and metals. The narrative describing the size, accessibility, and dedication of recycling storage areas and a floor plan showing the location of the recycling storage areas within the LEED-NC project have been provided. The area is adequately sized and located, and the narrative confirms the expected volume and pick-up frequencies. Recycling program details have also been provided. MRc1.1: Building Reuse-Maintain Existing Walls, Floors and Roof POSSIBLE POINTS: 3 MRc1.2: Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior MRc2: Construction Waste Management Awarded: 2 POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 ATTEMPTED: 2, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 2 07/07/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that the project has diverted 79.78% of the on-site generated construction waste from landfill. MRc3: Materials Reuse POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 MRc4: Recycled Content Awarded: 2 POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 ATTEMPTED: 2, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 2 09/30/2016 CONSTRUCTION FINAL REVIEW The additional documentation provided demonstrates compliance for installation of 32.22% recycled materials. 07/11/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that 32.38% of the total building materials content, by value, has been manufactured using recycled materials. However, to demonstrate compliance, the following must be addressed. TECHNICAL ADVICE 1. The Actual Materials Cost for Divisions 3-10, 31, and 32 is equivalent to the costs of the materials listed within the calculator. It is inconsistent with industry norms for the materials listed to be a complete list of all materials used within the LEED project. Therefore, it is unclear that the Actual Materials Costs include the costs of all materials associated with this LEED project. Actual Materials Cost must include the cost of all materials that are part of any specifications within Divisions 3-10, 31, 32 and 12 (if appropriate). For example, including any adhesives, sealants, coatings, etc. that are contained within those specification sections. Provide a narrative clarifying the project scope of work and the actual materials costs. Confirm that the list of materials provided is a comprehensive list of all materials used on the LEED project or revise the actual materials costs to accurately reflect the true total cost of all materials used within the LEED project (including those materials that do not contribute toward compliance). e that the cost of the 9Wood products reported in the calculator ($17,640.60) is inconsistent with the supporting documentation ($52,006.60). MRc5: Regional Materials Awarded: 2 POSSIBLE POINTS: 2 ATTEMPTED: 2, DENIED: 0, PENDING: 0, AWARDED: 2 09/30/2016 CONSTRUCTION FINAL REVIEW The additional documentation provided demonstrates compliance for installation of 27.91% regional materials.

14 07/11/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that 30.33% of the total building materials value includes materials and products that have been manufactured and extracted within 500 miles of the project site. However, to demonstrate compliance, the following must be addressed. TECHNICAL ADVICE 1. The Actual Materials Cost for Divisions 3-10, 31, and 32 is equivalent to the costs of the materials listed within the calculator. It is inconsistent with industry norms for the materials listed to be a complete list of all materials used within the LEED project. Therefore, it is unclear that the Actual Materials Costs include the costs of all materials associated with this LEED project. Actual Materials Cost must include the cost of all materials that are part of any specifications within Divisions 3-10, 31, 32 and 12 (if appropriate). For example, including any adhesives, sealants, coatings, etc. that are contained within those specification sections. Provide a narrative clarifying the project scope of work and the actual materials costs. Confirm that the list of materials provided is a comprehensive list of all materials used on the LEED project or revise the actual materials costs to accurately reflect the true total cost of all materials used within the LEED project (including those materials that do not contribute toward compliance). e that the cost of the 9Wood products reported in the calculator ($17,640.60) is inconsistent with the supporting documentation ($52,006.60). 2. The documentation indicates several products have the same manufacture and harvest distance (Continental Cast Stone East cast stone, Isotek products, and Laticrete products). It is not clear that the materials/products would be manufactured and extracted from the same location. The point of extraction for a recycled item could include a recycling facility, scrap yard, depository, stockpile, or any other location where the material was collected and packaged for market purchase before manufacturing. Therefore, the extraction location for a recycled material may or may not be the same as the manufacturing location. In most cases the extraction location for a recycled material will be a recycling facility or scrap yard. Provide documentation, such as manufacturer's letters or cut sheets, specifying that the materials listed above were manufactured and extracted within a 500 mile radius of the project. Ensure that the extraction location for the recycled content and the raw material content has been accounted for. Ensure that only the portion of the material where the extraction location is known is used toward compliance. Revise the form and LEED Materials and Resource Calculator if necessary. 3. The manufacturer documentation for CertainTeed ProRoc products indicates that the materials are non-compliant and must be excluded from the compliant calculations (i.e. Carrollton, KY, Ghent, KY, and Cayuga, IN are over 500 miles from the project site). MRc6: Rapidly Renewable Materials MRc7: Certified Wood Awarded: 1 09/30/2016 CONSTRUCTION FINAL REVIEW The additional documentation provided demonstrates compliance for installation of 99.68% certified wood materials. 07/11/2016 CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Form states that 100% of the total wood-based building materials are certified in accordance with the principles and criteria of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). However, to demonstrate compliance, the following must be addressed. TECHNICAL ADVICE 1. Invoices have not been provided for all products contributing toward this credit (specifically, the Little Falls Lumber and 84 Lumber products). Refer to the detailed documentation guidance for this credit outlined in the April 7, 2008 USGBC FSC Memorandum and LEED Interpretation 10296, which can be found on the USGBC website. Provide FSC compliant vendor invoices, and additional documentation if necessary, for all FSC Certified wood products. e this credit requires the wood products to be FSC Certified and all of the entities in the Chain of Custody to have a CoC Certification until the products reach the LEED project site. Entities that modify a product's packaging or form, except as required for installation, must have a CoC Certification. Additionally, materials costs must include all taxes and transportation costs incurred by the contractor but exclude any cost for labor and equipment once the material has been delivered to the site. Provide invoices for the products that were shipped to the project site and/or sold to the end-user to meet FSC requirements. Ensure that the calculation, including the manufacturers/vendors, product descriptions, numerators, and denominator, reflect the products that were delivered to the project site rather than the materials that have been sold to sub-contractors or millworkers. Provide a narrative that describes the Chain-of-Custody for the products above, including how the products were used in the project. Explain who manufactured, distributed, modified, and installed the products. Refer to the detailed guidance outlined in the April 7, 2008 USGBC FSC Memorandum and LEED

15 Interpretation 10296, which can be found on the USGBC website, for assistance on how to document this credit. 2. The cost of the 9Wood products reported in the calculator ($17,640.60) is inconsistent with the supporting documentation ($52,006.60). 3. The manufacturer documentation for the Marshefield woods indicates they are only 81% FSC certified.

16 Indoor Environmental Quality IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Awarded 12/02/2013 DESIGN FINAL REVIEW The LEED Prerequisite Form has been revised to address the issues outlined in the Preliminary Review comments and states that the system level outdoor air intake ventilation rates for all ventilation systems meet the minimum established in ASHRAE A response narrative and ASHRAE 62MZCalc Calculators have been provided. However, design outdoor air volumes for all units do not meet the minimum ventilation required by the ventilation rate procedure calculations. Specifically, the ASHRAE 62MZCalc Calculator provided for unit AHU-A-02 indicates that the minimum required outdoor air intake is 871 cfm, whereas the mechanical schedules indicate that the minimum outdoor air intake for this unit ranges from cfm. At the minimum conditions (600 cfm), sufficient ventilation air is not being provided. In this instance, the unit AHU-A-02 has been design to include demand control ventilation. According to calculations performed by the reviewer, when the occupancy is at zero, the minimum required outdoor air intake is 262 cfm, which is able to be met by the minimum outdoor air intake (600 cfm) for this unit. Therefore, compliance is not affected. The documentation demonstrates prerequisite compliance. For future submittals, please provide revised mechanical schedules to indicate the minimum outdoor air intake for each unit, and ensure that the minimum design outdoor air intake for each ventilation systems meets the minimum requirements established in ASHRAE /27/2013 DESIGN PRELIMINARY REVIEW The LEED Prerequisite Form has been provided stating that the project is mechanically ventilated and mechanically conditioned; therefore the project applies Case 1. The project has utilized the Ventilation Rate Procedure (VRP) Compliance Calculator and the form states that the mechanical ventilation system is comprised of multiple zone units and 100% outside air units. The project team Ventilation Systems Designer has signed the form as required. The VRP calculations and designed outdoor air intake rates confirm that the system level outdoor air intake ventilation rates for all ventilation systems meet the minimum established in ASHRAE However, four issues are pending: 1. It appears that the calculations may not have been performed for the worst case conditions. Generally, worst case conditions are during heating mode (Ez of 0.8 for an overhead distribution system in heating mode.) and when the VAV system is at minimum flow. 2. The total peak occupancy of 1,159 people documented for this prerequisite varies substantially from the total building users of 463 people reported in PIf3: Occupant and Usage Data. e that the peak occupancy should be reported consistently across all credits. 3. The total area of 92,530 square feet documented for this prerequisite varies substantially from the area of square feet reported in PIf2: Project Summary Details. 4. The ventilation systems serving the LEED-NC project space are multiple-zone recirculating systems, however, the version of the form utilized (Version 3.0) does not apply to these types of systems. The utilized form allows for only one zone and occupancy category per AHU which is appropriate for single-zone systems; however, the air handling units in this project serve multiple zones with varying occupancy types. While the form can be used in conjunction with supplemental documentation to confirm compliance of this prerequisite for multi-zone systems, the form itself is only appropriate for a limited type of system designs (i.e. single-zone systems). TECHNICAL ADVICE: 1. Provide revised Ventilation Rate Procedure calculations with an Ez of 0.8 and with the VAV system analyzed at minimum flow, or provide additional information to justify the parameters utilized. 2. Confirm the appropriate peak occupancy for the building, and update the peak occupancy and/or the diversity as necessary so that the peak occupancy is consistent across all credits, or provide a detailed narrative describing the difference in occupants. e that the ASHRAE default occupancy should not be used when the expected occupancy is known. 3. Update the Ventilation Rate Procedure calculations so that the area is consistent across all credits, or provide a detailed narrative describing the difference in area. 4. Provide a separate Ventilation Rate Procedure (VRP) calculation for each multiple-zone recirculating system serving the LEED-NC project. e that an upgraded version of the IEQp1 Prerequisite Form (Version 5.0) is available, which includes a calculator appropriate for documenting multiple-zone recirculating systems; however, it cannot properly calculate ventilation requirements for multiple zone recirculating systems with recirculation at the zone level (e.g. fan powered induction units). Though not required, it is strongly encouraged that the project upgrade to the most recent version of the credit form. Projects may request a form upgrade through the feedback button in LEED Online v3. Please include the specific prerequisite form, project number, project name, and rating system when requesting an upgrade.