LEED for Existing Buildings:
Operations & Maintenance Feasibility Report
February 18, 2011
Prepared on behalf of
Prepared for and funded by:
Prepared by:
Study Contact List Institute for the Built Environment April Wackerman, Projects Manager april.wackerman@colostate.edu Leah Neam, Green Building Associate lmneam@rams.colostate.edu Josie Plaut, Director of Projects josie.plaut@colostate.edu Brian Dunbar, Executive Director brian.dunbar@colostate.edu 1501 Campus Delivery Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 CSU, Facilities Management Carol Dollard, Energy Engineer carol.dollard@colostate.edu Jon Feiman, Project Manager jonathan.feiman@colostate.edu 6030 Campus Delivery Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... v
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Background .................................................................................................................................. 1
USGBC & LEED ............................................................................................................................. 2
Sustainability Commitment at Colorado State University .......................................................... 2
Duration of LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Certification Process .......................................... 3
LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Certification Process Overview ............................................. 4
Feasibility Study Process Review ................................................................................................. 5
Energy Star & LEED for Existing Buildings ................................................................................... 6
LEED for Multiple Buildings, Campuses, and Volume Programs ................................................. 6
Overview of Buildings Studied ........................................................................................................ 9
Clark A‐Wing ................................................................................................................................ 9
Yates Hall ................................................................................................................................... 10
The Natural and Environmental Sciences Building ................................................................... 11
The Institute for Learning and Teaching ................................................................................... 11
Aspen Hall .................................................................................................................................. 12
Gap Analysis Findings .................................................................................................................... 14
Policies and Programs ............................................................................................................... 14
LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Prerequisites ....................................................................... 15
LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Credits ................................................................................. 22
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 52
Roadmap to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Certification for CSU .......................................... 54
Funding opportunities ............................................................................................................... 54
Immediate Next Steps ............................................................................................................... 55
Schedule of performance periods ............................................................................................. 55
LEED Certification Action Items ................................................................................................. 56
iii Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A: Building Characteristics ........................................................................................ 58
Appendix B: Preliminary Site Boundaries and Area Take‐offs .................................................. 59
Appendix C: CSU Campus Credits and Polices .......................................................................... 65
Appendix D: Occupant Survey ................................................................................................... 66
Appendix E: Schedule of Performance Periods ......................................................................... 76
Appendix F: Draft Polices for Use by Departments at CSU ....................................................... 78
Appendix G: LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Scorecards ...................................................... 96
Appendix H: CSU Key Stakeholder Contact List ...................................................................... 101
iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Colorado Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) released a request for proposals to fund a feasibility analysis phase of the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance process on university campuses. The grant program sought to provide Colorado universities an opportunity to explore the barriers and opportunities of pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M for campus buildings at Colorado colleges and universities. Colorado State University’s Facilities Management Department and Institute for the Built Environment (IBE) collaborated on the successful grant proposal. This report describes the feasibility study conducted by IBE with support from CSU Facilities Management. In general, our assessment found that while LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M is a certification program for individual buildings, many of the standards evaluated could be implemented university wide, thereby streamlining the certification process for each building pursuing certification at Colorado State University. Below is a list of current programs and/or practices that contribute to any CSU building pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All new construction is required to achieve LEED‐NC Gold certification Written integrated pest management, erosion control and landscape management plans A strong willingness to utilize alternative transportation on campus and within the city exists. Ample tracts of protected land to contribute to off‐site protection of open habitat Ballasted roofs that are at service life are replaced with EPDM or white TPO; Newer roofs are single membrane and a white coating could be applied Campus‐wide requirements for full cut‐off exterior light fixtures Campus‐wide Building Automation System (BAS) Pilot occupant behavior engagement programs in development, though no staff to support currently All new refrigerants are CFC free and there is a plan for the remaining CFC refrigerants to be phased out on campus Refrigerant impact per ton for main campus chill water utility is less than 100 Greenhouse gas emissions are reported yearly Sustainable purchasing guidelines are written and available to interested parties or departments Well established integrated solid waste management program exists with staff to support Ventilation conforms to ASHRAE 62.1‐2007 requirements in new buildings Tobacco smoke control policy parallel with LEED requirements Custodial services strive to be leading edge in the industry, i.e. green cleaning practices v •
There is great opportunity to engage students with LEED certification activities, thereby serving the educational mission of the university while potentially lowering professional fees. Conversely, there are university‐wide concerns that make LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification challenging for any university building. Below is a list of these concerns. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No funds available nor staff to support LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification process No written building exterior and hardscape management plans Indoor water use is separately metered, but outdoor water use is not metered at the building level Non‐potable surface water used for landscaping does not meet LEED criteria for a non‐
potable water source per LEED rulings Energy use intensity in some existing buildings do not meet minimum energy performance requirements Typically, lighting is not controlled by campus BAS No formal funding mechanism for energy projects or on‐going commissioning programs No written preventative maintenance plan for HVAC equipment Only about half the buildings on campus have had energy audits. Not all ventilation in old buildings conform to ASHRAE 62.1‐2007 requirements University‐wide green cleaning and sustainable purchasing policies not currently approved at the university level Solid waste management and recycling tracked as a whole campus, not individual buildings No written solid waste management policy In the near future, there may be opportunity for universities to purchase a bundle of certifications through the LEED Volume program, providing a streamlined certification process and reducing overall certification fees. Additionally, USGBC is developing a process for universities to certify a campus, or subset of a campus, as a whole. Either way, implementing university‐wide policies, programs, and practices related to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M will bode well for future certification efforts. The overall goal of LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M is to maximize operational efficiency while minimizing environmental impacts by helping building owners and managers to measure operations improvements and maintenance on a consistent scale. There is no question that maximizing operational efficiency in on‐campus buildings requires upfront capital, but there is great opportunity to see large, on‐going savings as a campus by implementing policies, programs, and strategies that support operational efficiency at the building level. The biggest barrier at the university, at this time, is securing funding and human resources to support the efforts. vi INTRODUCTION
Background The Colorado Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) released a request for proposals to fund a feasibility analysis phase of the LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance (O&M) process on university campuses. The grant sought to provide Colorado universities an opportunity to explore the barriers and opportunities of pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M on buildings within the university campus. Colorado State University’s Facilities Management Department and Institute for the Built Environment (IBE) collaborated on this grant. While Facilities Management and IBE are housed at CSU, both have separate lines of reporting. The Facilities Management Department has the data and operational experience to understand and modify University policies and procedures for achieving high performance operations across building types on campus. IBE is a multi‐
disciplinary institute, housed in the College of Applied Human Sciences, and focuses on green building research, service‐learning, and outreach education. IBE has expertise in general green building research and consulting, corporate sustainability, and various LEED rating systems, including LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M, LEED for New Construction, LEED for Schools, and LEED for Commercial Interiors. IBE was hired to assist a wide variety of building projects and clients to achieve sustainability and green building goals for more than 15 years. IBE is a multidisciplinary research institute with the mission to foster stewardship and sustainability of the built environment through a research‐based, interdisciplinary educational forum. Originally established by faculty in the College of Applied Human Sciences, IBE brings together professionals and students from the related fields of design and construction to provide services, such as sustainable building training, research, and green building consultation, to regional project teams. The student interns work under the guidance and supervision of IBE directors, staff, and faculty to perform broad, professional project tasks. IBE offers professional service to project teams while creating valuable educational opportunities for future green building professionals. The work experience that Colorado State University students gain through real‐world projects has tremendous benefits for their professional development. Students who have worked with IBE have realized exceptional success in job placement among the nation’s leaders in green design, construction, and consulting firms. Colorado State University (CSU) is a land grant university with a long history of leadership in environmental stewardship. This grant provides the perfect opportunity for CSU to extend that leadership into the area of sustainable building operations and maintenance. The existing expertise in Facilities Management and IBE brings a unique perspective in identifying barriers and opportunities to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M implementation at CSU. 1 CSU has an inventory of over ten million square feet of buildings with ages ranging from newly constructed to over 100 years old. These buildings include classrooms, office buildings, laboratories, athletic facilities, and residential halls. With this large and diverse portfolio of buildings to choose from, the project team selected five buildings that represent a broad spectrum of buildings on campus. The five buildings selected for analysis were Yates Hall, Natural and Environmental Sciences Building (NESB), Clark A‐Wing, the Institute for Teaching and Learning (TILT), and Aspen Hall. USGBC & LEED The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), established in 1993, created a green building guidance system, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) that was first released in 2000. The immediate success of the LEED guidance and rating system led to the subsequent release of LEED for Commercial Interiors and LEED for Existing Buildings in 2004. During the first ten years of use, the pursuit of LEED certification was incorporated into standard practice and government policy and procedures for over 30 states, 100 cities, and numerous governmental, university, and private sector organizations. With the creation of LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M, a widespread understanding has emerged ‐ that a key to truly sustainable buildings is attention to ongoing sustainable operations and maintenance. The name of the rating system was revised to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M in 2008 to clarify that, while the other LEED systems focus on design and construction, LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M is focused on the long‐term efficient operations of the facility. Studies show that clearly far more energy, water, waste, and money are consumed during a building’s lifetime than during design and construction. With that understanding, many organizations are beginning to place more emphasis on sustainable facility operations. To this end, the Colorado Governor’s Energy Office is investigating the issues, costs, and potential benefits of LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M into college campuses and other state‐owned or managed facilities. Sustainability Commitment at Colorado State University At CSU, Facilities Management has taken a leadership role in sustainability efforts on campus. With projects ranging from energy efficiency upgrades and LEED for New Construction Gold certification for all new buildings, to the installation of over 5,500 kW of photovoltaic panels on campus, Facilities has demonstrated a broad and deep commitment to sustainability in university operations. The University has embraced the pursuit of LEED for New Construction on all new construction, becoming the second university in the nation to require LEED certification on all new campus buildings. Just before the universities’ LEED Gold requirement, the State of Colorado passed legislation to require all buildings with at least 25% of its funding coming from the state to attain the green building certification system and level set by the 2 State Architect. Since the adoption of the policy, the State Architect has required LEED Gold certification on all new state‐financed projects. Between 2008 and 2011, seven buildings at CSU have been certified and another five are awaiting certification. Prior to the mandate, the university had two LEED certified buildings – the Guggenheim Hall renovation obtained LEED for Commercial Interiors Silver certification and the City of Fort Collins Transit Center addition to the Lory Student Center was awarded a LEED Gold certification. Additionally, CSU has demonstrated their commitment to sustainability as signatories to both the Talloires Agreement 1 and the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment 2 (ACUPCC). ACUPCC signatories commit to documenting their greenhouse gas inventories and then developing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to identify the process and the timeline the university will use to achieve climate neutrality. The university has already completed their greenhouse gas inventory and Climate Action Plan. The Climate Action Plan presents strategies to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Energy efficiency in existing buildings is a major cornerstone of this plan completed in September 2010. CSU is committed to pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M in a portion of campus buildings when funding to support becomes available. While certification will not likely be pursued on all campus buildings, green O&M policies and procedures developed for certified buildings will carry over to the rest of campus. Similar to the LEED for New Construction commitment, the University would like to make a commitment to pursue LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M on existing buildings, but the barriers, such as lack of experience, time, and money, have been too great to overcome. Duration of LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Certification Process The LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M process varies greatly depending on the building type, the current performance of the building, capacity of in‐house support staff, and targeted certification level. For a university campus, the first building will have a longer certification period to accommodate for the project team to learn the process and gather supporting documentation. After the first building, the duration of the process will be reduced because much of the documentation and legwork will be prepared. Given the variables, the certification process could take as long as 4 years. However, if occupant training, sustainability policies, and documentation strategies are developed prior to the start of the certification process, it could take as little as 4 to 8 months to certify a building. http://www.ulsf.org/pdf/TD.pdf 2
http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/ 1
3 LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Certification Process Overview The LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification process can generally be carried out in six phases, including: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Audit & Feasibility Estimating Implementation Performance Period Certification Post Certification During the Audit & Feasibility phase current practices, policies, and systems are accessed via data collection, stakeholder interviews, and site visits. All LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M policies and prerequisites are evaluated and potential credits points are identified as compared to the strengths and weaknesses of the facility. The feasibility report outlines the current practices, illuminates gaps and barriers, and recommends measures necessary to prepare a facility for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification. The timeframe for this phase is approximately three months. The Estimating phase includes quantifying the cost and effort required to implement the recommendations of the Audit & Feasibility phase. Goals for the certification are identified and a schedule of values is developed. For example, in order to pursue certification, energy performance, ventilation, and policies would need to meet minimum requirements. If upgrades are required to meet the minimum requirements, those upgrades are estimated at this time and decisions about whether or not to move forward are made. The timeframe for this phase is generally between one to two months and naturally leads into the implementation phase. During the Implementation phase, building and campus programs and policies are developed and required programs, policies, and facility upgrades are put in place. Behavior engagement programs and occupant education trainings are carried out. All building renovations are completed before the end of the Implementation phase. The timeframe for this phase is between 3 and 8 months and can vary based on the degree of change that needs to be executed. Major operational or physical change can take longer whereas simply documenting standard best practices can be less time consuming. In LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M, points are awarded only for proven, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) practices. The Performance Period phase is the O&M tracking phase 4 where all practices will be measured for LEED certification. For LEED certification, the performance period must be least three months for most credits and prerequisites, though some credits require a longer tracking period. Additionally, at least one year of energy data must be available for LEED assessment, which can overlap with the tracking period. The maximum performance period is 24 months. The Certification phase consists of submitting all tracked and measured O&M practices and programs to the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) for review. The LEED reviewer’s return their comments and clarification requests and the project team will need to respond before final award. Once clarification requests have been addressed and review, final certification award is provided. LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification is awarded when sufficient documentation proves compliance with the required number of prerequisites and credits. The Post‐Certification phase includes continual tracking and improvement of O&M practices. Additionally, USGBC requires that each building be recertified every 5 years in order to maintain active certified status. The cost of recertification varies greatly for each building. However, if the owner has already committed to a high level of owner involvement, planning, and detailed tracking, the costs can be minimized. Feasibility Study Process Review The Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) grant funded the first phase of the LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification process, Audit and Feasibility. This report summarizes the findings from Audit and Feasibility phase. The study began with meetings between the Institute for the Built Environment and key stakeholders of the Facilities Department at Colorado State University. During an initial meeting, the project team created preliminary LEED scorecards for each building, analyzed each prerequisite, identified key building stakeholders to contact for further analysis, and identified project leaders to carry out the scope of work. The key building stakeholders were interviewed to evaluate current practices and identify opportunities and barriers. The project leaders conducted site visits and building walkthroughs. The LEED Volume programs and Campus guidelines were assessed and the project leaders interviewed the director of these programs to further understand the opportunities of these programs as related to CSU’s future. Finally, based on interviews, site visits, and analysis, IBE developed the following roadmap to LEED for Existing Building: Operations and Maintenance certification for CSU. 5 Energy Star & LEED for Existing Buildings ENERGY STAR is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program that focuses on improving energy performance in buildings as a method of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ENERGY STAR offers owners and managers of all buildings access to free tools and resources to help them evaluate their energy performance. Organizations are encouraged to begin by benchmarking the performance of their buildings using ENERGY STAR’s Portfolio Manager online energy tracking tool. The ENERGY STAR scoring ranges from 0 to 100 with 100 being the best performance. The ENERGY STAR label is available as an indicator of superior energy performance to buildings that score a 75 or better. Buildings carrying the ENERGY STAR label consume on average about 35 percent less energy than their non‐ENERGY STAR counterparts’ do. One critical component to qualifying for a LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification is that the building must demonstrate a minimum ENERGY STAR score of 69. Higher ENERGY STAR scores earn additional points in the Optimize Energy credit. The ENERGY STAR rating system currently uses 13 types of buildings for their energy performance ratings. The buildings include Offices, Banks, Courthouses, K‐12 Schools, Hospitals, Hotels, Retail Stores, Supermarkets, Residence Halls/ Dormitories, Warehouses, Medical Offices, Wastewater Facilities, and Houses of Worship. If a building does not fit into one of the standard 13 categories, ENERGY STAR’s Portfolio Manager can be used to find the energy usage per square foot, but the building will not be eligible for the ENERGY STAR label. Of the buildings in this study, only Aspen Hall fits into one of the 13 categories (Residence Hall/Dormitories). The LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M rating system offers an alternative benchmarking process for the other 4 buildings that do not fit into the ENERGY STAR categories. USGBC provides a LEED calculator for buildings not eligible for the ENERGY STAR rating that compares the energy intensity of the building calculated in Portfolio Manager to other buildings that have similar uses and climate zones. The other alternative is to compare the building’s historical data for a longer period. LEED for Multiple Buildings, Campuses, and Volume Programs USGBC designed the LEED rating systems as a one‐building‐at‐a‐time certification system. In recent years, USGBC has been developing programs that accommodate owners with a large portfolio, prototype buildings and/or buildings on a campus. In 2010, USGBC released the LEED Volume Program and the 2010 Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On‐Campus Building Projects. The following glossary clarifies the commonly used terminology. 6 Portfolio Prototype LEED Volume Program LEED for Multiple Buildings and Campus Buildings Campus Campus Credits Block Certification Group of buildings managed or operated by one organization. An early version of a building project intended to be replicated (e.g. retail stores). A streamlined certification process for organizations planning to certify a significant number of new buildings or a large portfolio of existing buildings (25+), and/or prototype buildings. A streamlined credit documentation process for organizations with multiple buildings on one campus. This process saves time in subsequent LEED projects on the campus by allowing the project team to refer to the pre‐approved campus credits instead of providing full documentation for each individual building. A single site under the ownership or management of a single entity. A LEED prerequisite or credit that can be attempted for most or all projects within a LEED Campus Boundary because of shared site features, uniformity in project, or management traits. A free project management tool for customers with multiple LEED projects. Projects can be grouped together in a block as specified by the customer, in order to be reviewed by one LEED review team. For example, a block may be created to group LEED projects on a campus or under a single management firm. LEED Volume Program In 2006, USGBC began working with project teams to pilot a “portfolio” program. These pilot projects gave way to the new LEED Volume Program, released in 2010. The goal of the LEED Volume Program is to reduce costs for organizations that will certify 25 or more projects within three years. The 2010 LEED Volume Program 3 is a certification process for new construction projects taking advantage of uniformity in building design, construction, and management practices. The LEED Volume Program is carried out in three phases: 1. Prototype Registration 2. Prototype Pre‐certification 3. Ongoing certification Once the project team has been accepted into the program through an application process, the project team registers the projects’ prototype and purchases a volume project bundle for 25 projects. All bundles are purchased in 25‐project increments and provide the ability to register and submit 25 volume projects for certification within three years from the time of purchased. Volume project bundles can be purchased, and volume projects may be registered, any time after prototype registration is complete, although construction may not begin until the prototype is pre‐certified. During pre‐certification, the registered prototype is thoroughly reviewed by the GBCI reviewers. Once pre‐certification is achieved, work can begin on the prototype project and audits are conducted to ensure ongoing compliance. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2278 3
7 The volume certification process for existing buildings is under development and is expected to be released in 2011. It is expected that the volume certification process for existing buildings will be applicable to university campuses pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification for more than 25 buildings within a given period of time, though the details of rates, fees, and certification process are unknown at this time. Application Guide for Multiple Buildings and On‐Campus Building Projects USGBC recognizes that multiple buildings on a shared site under the control of a single entity have great opportunity for sustainable planning and design. USGBC has released Part 1 of the 2010 Application Guide for a Multiple Buildings and On‐Campus Building Projects 4 (AGMBC) to provide guidance to project teams using LEED 2009 to certify individual 5 buildings on a campus owned by one entity. Part 1 is an approach for streamlining documentation of on‐campus projects. The process includes documenting all campus credits through a master site registration, at the expense of the project team. Once reviewed and accepted, the campus credits are pre‐approved in the given rating cycle (e.g. LEED 2009, 2012, etc.) for use on the individual buildings pursuing certification. Part 2 (expected to be released in 2011) will help to certify a group of buildings 6 as a package where the entire building set will receive a single rating. These buildings may constitute an entire campus or be a subset of an existing campus, though there will be a limit on the number of buildings and/or the amount of square footage allowed in one registration. 4
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2326 5
LEED certification on a campus where each project is registered and certified independently. 6
LEED certification for multiple projects on a shared site, such that more than one building may be included within a single LEED registration. 8 OVERVIEW OF BUILDINGS STUDIED
Colorado State University, like many universities, is composed of many buildings, diverse departments, and various levels of maintenance. The oldest building still standing at CSU was built in 1881 and the newest buildings were completed within the past year. Although some campus buildings have not been remodeled, many of the existing buildings at CSU have been renovated at least once. To gain an understanding of the breadth of the university portfolio, the project team selected five buildings based on varying age and building type in an attempt to identify, analyze, and represent the barriers and opportunities of pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M on all levels. The five buildings selected were The Institute for Learning and Teaching (TILT), Clark A‐Wing, Natural and Environmental Sciences Building (NESB), Yates Hall, and Aspen Hall. On the CSU campus, buildings are managed by two separate entities. The Facilities Management Department manages academic buildings, referred to as Resident Instruction (RI) buildings. RI buildings are facilities that are financially supported under the university budget. Four of the five buildings are RI buildings, including TILT, Clark A‐Wing, NESB, and Yates Hall. The second entity that manages campus buildings is Housing and Dining Services (HDS). HDS is a self‐supporting enterprise entity at the university responsible for all residence halls and residence associated facilities. HDS funds their buildings through revenues from leasing their facilities to students. HDS manages one of the buildings in the study, Aspen Hall. Clark A‐Wing The Clark building is a central building on campus that is composed of three different wings, A, B, and C. The A‐Wing is included in the scope of this study and includes three floors; a basement, first floor, and second floor. The A‐wing was built separately from the B & C wings and is metered independently from the remainder of the building. The first and second floors consist of academic auditoriums and public restrooms, while the basement is mainly office space. Clark A‐Wing was built in 1966 and has a gross floor area of approximately 102,000 square feet. No major renovations to the buildings systems have been recorded; however a cosmetic renovation to the 1st and 2nd floor classrooms is currently underway. This includes upgrades to the lighting, seating, finishes, and the audiovisual equipment in all eleven A‐wing auditoriums. Digital controls have replaced obsolete pneumatic controls on the mechanical system and temperature sensors were relocated. In addition, upgrades to the basement offices include ceiling tiles, flooring, and paint. Currently, because of relatively high energy and water use, this building is not a good candidate for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification unless major mechanical and plumbing renovations are carried out. The following are points that may contribute towards LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification specific to this facility: 9 •
•
Building occupants use alternative transportation regularly Site contributes to on‐site stormwater management The following are concerns related to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M specific to this facility: •
•
•
•
Large gap exists to meet minimum energy performance No record of indoor water fixture upgrades, plumbing upgrades are likely required All interior lighting manually controlled – distance exemption calculations required Inadequate access to views to the outdoors Yates Hall Yates Hall was substantially completed in 2004 and has a gross floor area of 87,800 square feet. It serves both the Biology and Chemistry departments. Although Yates Hall is structurally independent, it was constructed as a bridge between two adjacent buildings: Anatomy/Zoology and Chemistry. The first floor consists of an auditorium for university wide classes, small teaching laboratories used for student recitations, and the buildings’ only research laboratory. The second through the fifth floor consists mainly of teaching lab spaces that are regularly used. While high windows in each room provide natural light to spaces, they do not provide adequate views to the outdoors. One of the barriers associated with this building include its inability to individually control fume hoods in each teaching lab. Fume hoods are controlled as a whole and turn are turned down every day at a set time. This means that many hoods are still running at full volume while not in use. Since this building is almost entirely classroom and laboratory space, there are only 5 full time occupants. The following are points that may contribute towards LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification specific to this facility: •
•
•
Existing conditions meet minimum energy efficiency requirements Building built after 1993, meeting minimum indoor water efficiency requirements Building occupants use alternative transportation regularly The following are concerns related to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M specific to this facility: •
•
•
•
Inadequate access to views to the outdoors Fume hoods controlled as a building, no individual control All interior lighting manually controlled – distance exemption calculations required No on‐site stormwater control 10 The Natural and Environmental Sciences Building The Natural and Environmental Sciences Building (NESB) has a gross floor area of approximately 77,000 square feet and is home to the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory (NREL), the Landscape Architecture department and the Soils department. The department of Landscape Architecture is primarily educational consisting of large studios and a few classrooms. The remainder of the building is primarily office or laboratories. The majority of the labs are research laboratories; however, there are two large teaching labs. 7 No major renovations have been made to this building since it was built in 1995. During the building walkthrough, it was apparent that the building would be a good candidate for balancing and commissioning because the functions in some of the labs have changed. Originally, this building was believed to be a challenge in terms of water and energy efficiency, but further investigation has shown that all prerequisites can be achieved and this building is a good candidate for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification. The following are points that may contribute towards LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification specific to this facility: •
•
•
•
•
Existing conditions meet minimum energy efficiency requirements and additional points can be earned for energy efficiency Building built after 1993, meeting minimum indoor water efficiency requirements Adequate access to views to the outdoors Building occupants use alternative transportation regularly Site contributes to on‐site stormwater management The following are concerns related to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M specific to this facility: •
•
•
Indoor water performance calculation required to earn additional points All interior lighting manually controlled – distance exemption calculations required High water turf grass landscaping The Institute for Learning and Teaching The Institute for Learning and Teaching (TILT) facility has a gross floor area of approximately of 31,562 square feet and is the oldest building in our study. TILT, was originally built in 1928, but underwent a major renovation in 2008. In 1928, this building was the university’s first dedicated, stand‐alone library. It was later home to the department of music and remained as 7
Research labs are defined as laboratory spaces in which scientific research is conducted. These labs generally operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Teaching labs are spaces designed to laboratory codes and still require 100% outside air, but are used for teaching/classroom purposes. 11 such until the 2008 renovation. Renovation was completed in the spring of 2009 when the Institute for Learning and Teaching moved into the building, accompanied by the Center for Advising and Student Achievement (CASA), and the Transfer Advising Center. The renovation included major renovation to the interior design, upgrades to the first floor plumbing fixtures and addition of two new restrooms on the second floor. The greatest change to the building was the occupant load. With the buildings’ previous function, the occupancy rate was generally low volume with infrequent student use and a handful of full‐time departmental staff and faculty. The current occupants are regular, full time users of the space and the space types changed from primarily classrooms to primarily offices. Also, CASA regularly sees a moderate volume of student visitors each day. While this building does not currently meet minimum energy performance requirements, this building is a great candidate for an occupant behavior engagement program that strives to bring energy consumption down through awareness, education, and changes in behaviors. If energy reduction can be realized, this building would be a good candidate for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification. The following are points that may contribute towards LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification specific to this facility: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pilot occupant behavior engagement program underway Enthusiastic building champions Water efficient landscaping All plumbing fixtures have been upgraded since 1993, meeting minimum requirements Site contributes to on‐site stormwater control Adequate access to views to the outdoors Full cut‐off exterior lighting fixtures The following are concerns related to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M specific to this facility: •
•
Does not currently meet minimum energy performance All interior lighting manually controlled – distance exemption calculations required Aspen Hall Aspen Hall is the newest building in the study, completed in 2009 and has a gross floor area of approximately 67,000 square feet. Aspen achieved LEED Gold certification for New Construction v2.2. It is the only building in the study to be previously certified under the LEED rating system. Aspen Hall is a student residence hall consisting of 91 double rooms with private bathrooms, and 6 four‐person suites with 2 shared bathrooms. As a residence hall, it is in use the equivalent of 290 days per year; this includes the student school year as well as time the 12 rooms are in use for conferences and other summer activities hosted by CSU. Aspen will likely be an excellent candidate for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification and is already proving to be high performing. Housing and Dining Services has a team committed to sustainability and improving their quality of services. Consequently, there is a growing interest in LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M for residence halls on campus. The following are points that may contribute towards LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification specific to this facility: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LEED‐NC certified building High ENERGY STAR score Site contributes to on‐site stormwater control Green cleaning and sustainable purchasing are standard practice Growing demand for energy efficiency and sustainability from incoming students Low flow/flush indoor water fixtures Water efficient landscaping Adequate daylighting throughout regularly occupied spaces Adequate views to the outdoors The following are concerns related to LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M specific to this facility: •
All interior lighting manually controlled – distance exemption calculations required 13 GAP ANALYSIS FINDINGS
Policies and Programs At an organization or facility management level, high‐level statements, called policies, pave a way for lower‐level statements, known as programs and/or plans, targeted at implementing the policies. In LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M, a policy requires an organization to adopt an inclusive action at the operational level. A program or plan operates at the field level and outlines specific steps to meeting a policy. USGBC Policy Format for LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance Within the LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M rating system, there are several policies that are required as a part of prerequisites. All policies submitted as part of LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification must adhere to the policy model format and contain the following sections: •
•
•
•
•
•
Scope Performance metric Goals Procedures and strategies Responsible party Time period The scope should describe the affected operational process and the current facility management practices currently in place on the project. Additionally, the scope should include a detailed description of building components, systems, and materials that are influenced by the policy. Each policy is created to support certain sustainability goals which are measured and/or evaluated by a performance metric and is championed by a responsible party. This party is identified by the project team and will be involved in activities pertaining to the policy. The final piece of this format requires that the time period of the policy is defined. In addition, the format of operational programs and plans is defined with certain minimum requirements that impact a facility’s operational system. The key elements that make up a program/plan are: goals and scope, responsible parties, guidance for resources and implementation, performance measurement, and quality assurance. If compliant plans currently exist, it is not necessary to develop separate documents for LEED, as long as they contain each section described above. 14 Colorado State University Process for Policy Development For universities, especially CSU, one of the challenges with LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M is the process for developing formal university policy. At CSU, there are three ways policies could be implemented: system‐wide, university‐wide, or by department. System‐wide policies would apply to all three campuses that fall under the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University system and would require approval by the Board of Governors. For example, a revision to the existing smoking policy is currently in the approval process at the system‐wide level, thereby impacting CSU campus, in addition to the two other campuses. A university‐wide policy would apply only to the CSU campus and would require approval by the President. Alternatively, policies can be developed and implemented at the department level. For example, the Facilities Management department drafted green building policies, i.e. green cleaning, sustainable purchasing, etc., for use by buildings/departments that are a part of the CSU LEED Green Building Certification Program. The challenge with this process is that university buildings often house more than one department; therefore, building and departmental champions would need to be established to effectively communicate the policies. While logistical challenges exist with all three, the department policies would allow new policies to be implemented at the building level without approval of the President and/or Board of Governors. Currently, five green building policies have been drafted and adhere to the USGBC policy format discussed above. Four of them, 1) Green Cleaning, 2) Sustainable Purchasing, 3) Integrated Solid Waste Management, and 4) Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance, are departmental policies drafted by Facilities Management; the fifth, Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control, would be a system‐wide policy. LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Prerequisites In the LEED rating system, there are prerequisites, or minimum requirements, that building projects must meet in order to pursue certification. Table 1 shows how each of the buildings are performing in relation to the minimum requirements in LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M. Currently, two of the buildings in the study are not meeting one or more of the prerequisites. These buildings may not pursue certification until compliance is demonstrated, representing a barrier to proceed with certification. 15 Prerequisite WEp1 EAp1 EAp2 EAp3 MRp1 MRp2 IEQp1 IEQp2 IEQp3 Aspen Hall Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Clark A‐Wing N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y NESB Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y TILT Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Yates Hall Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Table 1: LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Building Prerequisite Compliance
WE prerequisite 1: Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency Champion: LEED Administrator This prerequisite requires that the building reduce indoor water fixture use. There are four options to follow to meet minimum requirements. Option 1: Previously LEED certified building: If the building achieved a water reduction credit under a previous rating system, an official LEED scorecard must be provided to prove compliance. Option 2: Building constructed in 1993 or later: If the building was substantially completed after January 1st 1993, documentation must be provided to ensure that the installed fixtures meet all plumbing fixture standards that were in place at the time. Option 3: Plumbing fixtures replaced since 1993: This option applies to buildings that were substantially completed prior to 1993, but since then have undergone a major renovation, including upgrades to 100% of the plumbing fixtures. Documentation must be provided that all relevant fixtures have been replaced. Option 4: Plumbing fixtures installed before 1993: This option involves compiling an inventory of all plumbing fixtures, recording and calculating water consumption based on fixture information and full time occupancy usage. Once this information is gathered the installed flush/flow rates are evaluated against a baseline to establish water savings. The baseline varies depending on the number of fixtures and year that the indoor plumbing system was installed or last renovated. If the plumbing system was installed prior to 1993, the system must use less than 160% of the 2006 International Plumbing Code, or the Uniform Plumbing Code, requirements. If the plumbing system was installed after 1993, then the system must use less than 120% of the 2006 codes. If there is a mixture of fixtures that meet both criteria, a weighted average is calculated for the baseline. When the system uses less water than the calculated baseline, the prerequisite is met. 16 Of the buildings in this study, Aspen Hall, Yates Hall, and NESB have not been renovated since their substantial completion (after 1993). The TILT building was originally built in 1928 but underwent a major renovation in 2009 and most of the plumbing fixtures were upgraded. Clark A‐Wing is currently undergoing cosmetic renovation, but the plumbing fixtures have not been upgraded since the original construction in 1966. Consequently, each building would follow a different option for documenting compliance. Aspen Hall would achieve this prerequisite easily by following Option 1 since it documented compliance for indoor water savings in the previous LEED‐NC certification. NESB and Yates Hall would follow Option 2 since both buildings were constructed after 1993, and have not been updated since that completion. Their next step would be documenting and submitting proof of completion dates, and that all fixtures are compliant with the 2006 IPC. TILT would follow Option 3 since it was originally built in 1928 but has undergone major renovations to its interior, including upgrades to all plumbing fixtures in 2009. To document compliance with Option 3, documentation must be provided showing that all compliant fixtures have been replaced and updated. Most likely, Clark A‐Wing would not succeed in documenting compliance with this prerequisite. Clark A‐Wing contains a myriad of different fixtures. Fixtures are typically replaced on an “as needed” basis, and specifications of the fixture have not been recorded. Additionally, the flow/flush rates are not stamped on many of the fixtures, so significant work would have to be done to test the actual rates of each fixture. If Clark A‐Wing were to undergo an update of all its plumbing fixtures, this prerequisite would be easily achieved. Table 2 shows the appropriate baseline and performance of each building. Year plumbing system substantially completed/renovated Required Option IPC/UPC Baseline WEp1 Compliance Table 2: WEp1 Compliance Aspen Hall 2009 Clark A‐Wing 1966 NESB 2005 TILT 1928/2009 Yates Hall 2001 Option 1 120% Y Option 4 160% N Option 2 120% Y Option 3 120% Y Option 2 120% Y EA prerequisite 1: Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices, Planning Documentation and Assessment Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager This prerequisite requires a planning, documentation and opportunity assessment. Operational procedures and best practices must be outlined, and an ASHRAE Level I walk through and energy audit must be completed. Documentation required include a building operating plan, a systems narrative, a sequence of operations plan, a preventative maintenance plan, and a report summarizing the ASHRAE walk through findings. 17 Our interview with the Facilities Management Utilities Services Manager gleaned valuable information regarding the feasibility of the prerequisite. The scope of work required for this prerequisite is achievable, but appropriate staffing needed to carry out the ASHRAE Level I audit and respective documentation would need to be coordinated. At CSU, utility savings 8 from energy projects can be re‐allocated to a fund for future energy projects, which could be a mechanism for funding AHSRAE Level I energy audits of campus buildings. The Utility Services Manager estimated that this prerequisite would require several people a couple weeks of time to gather the information. Specifically, a preliminary energy use analysis would take about 7 labor hours per building. Table 3 illustrates necessary labor hours to complete an ASHRAE Level I audit at CSU. Labor hours include all “man‐ hours” needed for the task, i.e. for one engineer and one billing technician, two total hours are required. It is also considered that the time investment will go down as experience with the process increases. Therefore, it is recommended to begin this process of certification in a newer building, e.g. Aspen Hall, then to move to older, more difficult buildings as experience is gained. Labor Hours Aspen Hall 45 Clark A‐Wing 86 NESB 55 TILT 40 Yates Hall 63 Table 3: ASHRAE Level I Audit Estimated Labor Hours
EA prerequisite 2: Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance Champion: LEED Administrator This prerequisite measures energy efficiency of the building as compared to the national average for similar building types. LEED requires at least 12 months of utility data to be gathered and entered into ENERGY STAR’s Portfolio Manager. Once this is completed, there are two cases to follow to document compliance. Case 1 is for buildings eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating and receives a rating of 69 or greater based on 12 months of utility data in EPA’s Portfolio Manager. Case 2 is for buildings not eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating and requires that the building demonstrate energy efficiency at least 19% better than the average for typical buildings of similar type. In this case compliance is investigated by using the USGBC’s “EAp2 8
Utilities on the Colorado State University Main Campus are owned and maintained by Colorado State University. Facilities Management sub‐meters, or allocates utility bills, to individual buildings and bills for some internal “customers”. The University customers consist of Auxiliary Entities, such as Student Recreation, Student Health, Housing and Dining Services, and the Student Center, and Resident Instruction (RI) buildings, i.e. academic buildings. TILT, NESB, Clark A‐Wing, and Yates Hall are RI buildings, while Aspen Hall is managed by Housing & Dining Services (HDS), an auxiliary entity. All auxiliary facilities are responsible for their utility bills and pay Facilities Management monthly for energy consumed, as well as a distribution maintenance cost (DMC). RI buildings however, are not individually responsible for their utility bills, although those buildings may have individual meters for each of their utility services. 18 Case 2 B&C Calculator” which uses the building Energy Utilization Index (EUI) data that is generated in Portfolio Manager. This calculator provides the buildings’ performance compared to the national average for similar building types. ENERGY STAR’s Portfolio Manager was used to determine the energy intensity or rating of the buildings. As shown in Table 4, three of the buildings are at or above the minimum requirements and two of the buildings are below the minimum requirements. Aspen Hall is the only building eligible for an ENERGY STAR rating and achieves a rating of 93. Of the buildings demonstrating energy efficiency below the minimum requirements, the current energy intensity can be attributed to the age of the HVAC systems; current function of the building spaces, and/or no system balancing or little commissioning has taken place since the building was constructed. ENERGY STAR Rating ENERGY STAR Source Energy Intensity (kBtu/sf) Case 2 Adjusted Benchmark (kBtu/sf) Labs21 Benchmark (kBtu/sf) EAp2 Requirement Aspen Hall 93 ‐ ‐ Clark A‐Wing ‐ 200 142 NESB ‐ 487 ‐ TILT ‐ 189 173 Yates Hall ‐ 615 723 567 kBtu/sf Y 5 ‐ 134 kBtu/sf N 0 800 627 kBtu/sf Y 0 ‐ ‐ 69 EAp2 Compliance EAc1 Points Y 17 ‐ 110 kBtu/sf N 0 Table 4: Energy Intensity of Buildings Failure to comply with all prerequisites prohibits certification from being pursued, therefore, the energy intensity of Clark A‐Wing and TILT pose a significant barrier to pursuing certification. If certification were pursued for Clark A‐Wing or TILT, significant time and resources would be required to bring the energy intensity down to meet or exceed minimum energy performance requirements. An energy audit may, however, show that efficiency upgrades would provide a healthy return on investment and thereby make these buildings eligible for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification. Alternatively, occupant engagement programs could be implemented to lower energy consumption to the necessary levels by adjusting occupant behaviors. Energy and Atmosphere prerequisite 2, Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance can be the most difficult prerequisite to achieve and can serve as a gatekeeper for pursuing certification. Therefore, it is crucial to get a handle on energy performance from the beginning of a project, typically during the audit and feasibility phase, and decide if the building is a good candidate, or not. 19 EA prerequisite 3: Fundamental Refrigerant Management Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager This prerequisite addresses the use of refrigerants and requires the elimination of CFC‐based refrigerants, a phase out plan for CFC‐based refrigerants, or a third party audit confirming that replacement or conversion is not feasible. According to stakeholder interviews, CFC‐based refrigerants are not used in any of the buildings in this study. An acceptable HFC R‐134A is used in most buildings on the Colorado State Campus. MR prerequisite 1: Sustainable Purchasing Policy Champion: Farrah Bustamante, Strategic Sourcing Specialist; Bob Schur, Policy and Code Compliance Director This prerequisite requires a sustainable purchasing policy outlining requirements for the purchase of environmentally preferable products and materials when economically feasible. As mentioned in the Policy section, all policies must adhere to USGBC’s specifications for the program, plan, and policy model. To meet the prerequisite requirements, this policy must cover, at a minimum, products and materials addressed in MRc1: Sustainable Purchasing, Ongoing Consumables, and at least one of the other purchasing credits (MRc2 through 4). Currently, Colorado State University does not formally have a university‐wide sustainable purchasing policy in place; however, a sustainable purchasing policy has been drafted and has been presented to the President for approval in future. This purchasing policy will comply with the LEED requirements by including standards for purchasing ongoing consumables, durable goods, equipment, and green cleaning. The policy will also incorporate standards for electronic projects that have had a life cycle assessment performed by the third party, called EPEAT. If this policy is approved, it will be a university‐wide policy, affecting the campus as a whole, including all Auxiliary Entities, such as Housing & Dining Services. In the meantime, there are sustainable purchasing guidelines available to university departments that are interested in making sustainable purchases. For campus buildings to meet the requirements of this prerequisite, the university policy would need to be approved, or policies could be implemented at the department level, i.e. Facilities Management. MR prerequisite 2: Solid Waste Management Policy Champion: Sheela Backen, Integrated Solid Waste Manager This prerequisite requires a solid waste management (SWM) policy aimed at reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill from the building. This policy should adhere to the LEED for 20 Existing Buildings: O&M policy model and address the credit requirements of MRc4, MRc7, MRc8 and MRc9. At CSU, it is standard practice to reduce, reuse, and recycle as much as possible across campus. Although there is no formal policy that mandates recycling, it is encouraged and financially supported by the university President and Vice President. In order to achieve this prerequisite, a formal solid waste management policy would be written to include the disposal and recycling of ongoing consumables, durable goods, facility alterations and additions, and the recycling of all mercury containing lights. As previously described, a solid waste management policy has been drafted to be adapted by facilities management. IEQp1: Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Champion: Jonathan Feiman, Project Manager This prerequisite addresses the amount of airflow delivered by air handling units (AHUs). There are two cases that can be followed to meet the requirements of the prerequisite. Case 1 requires that AHUs deliver the flows required by ASHRAE 62.1‐2007. If this case is pursued, the ventilation system must be modified or maintained to supply the required flows under normal operating conditions. Case 2 is required if AHUs cannot deliver the flows required by the ASHRAE 62.1‐2007 standard. As an alternative, it is required to demonstrate that the current system cannot meet the ASHRAE standard and modify or maintain the system to supply greater than, or equal to 10 cubic feet per minute, per person, under normal operating conditions. All of the buildings in this study meet ASHRAE 62.1‐2007 and would therefore comply with the requirements of Case 1. IEQp2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke (EST) Control Champion: Bob Schur, Policy and Code Compliance Director and Rick Collins, Policy Writer This prerequisite addresses the control of cigarette smoke on the building site. It requires a policy to be implemented prohibiting smoking within a building and also within 25 feet of the building’s entrances, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows. If the owner wants to allow for smoking within the building, it is required to only allow smoking in designated smoking areas that are mechanically designed to keep the tobacco smoke from filtering through the building. This option also requires that smoking be prohibited within in 25 feet of the building’s entrances, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows. Currently, a university policy exists that prohibits smoking within any university building, and also within 20 feet of a building entrance, outdoor air intakes, and operable windows. The current policy is being amended by a system wide policy and will reflect the 25‐foot requirement. 21 IEQp3: Green Cleaning Policy Champion: Farrah Bustamante, Strategic Sourcing Specialist and Bob Schur, Policy and Code Compliance Director This prerequisite requires the development of a green cleaning policy which can lay the foundation to achieve the six green cleaning credits. This policy should be simple, straightforward, and easy to use. The policy should identify cleaning equipment purchasing, standard operating procedures, current hand‐hygiene strategies, chemical storage and handling, maintenance staff training procedures and the collection of occupant feedback and complaints. It should identify existing green cleaning products and procedures. This policy should be comprehensive of basic goals of the other green cleaning credits. The purchase of sustainable cleaning products and materials must meet applicable standards outlined by Green Seal, Environmental Choice and/or the U.S. EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. Currently, some green cleaning choices are made informally. Formal green cleaning purchasing requirements will be included in the Sustainable Purchasing Policy that is currently under review. LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Credits In the LEED rating systems, credits are optional to pursue by project teams, and the achievement and accumulation of them determine the level of certification. The following section identifies each credit, and discusses general requirements as well as the evaluation of how each building demonstrates compliance with the credit requirements. Although possible points have been indicated, they are preliminary and are subject to change. SSc1: LEED Certified Design and Construction Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 4 points This credit is achievable when the project building has received a previous LEED certification under another LEED rating system. Of the buildings in this study, only Aspen Hall has previously achieved LEED for New Construction Gold certification. 22 SSc2: Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan Champion: Fred Haberecht, Campus Landscape Architect Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit encourages environmentally sensitive building exterior and hardscape maintenance practices that reduce waste and pollution. The operational elements that included in the scope of this credit are maintenance equipment, snow and ice removal, cleaning of building exterior and hardscapes, and paints and sealants used on the building exterior. It requires that the environmentally sensitive practices are thoroughly incorporated into vendor contracts and standard operating procedures (SOP) language. The maintenance plans should employ best practices that reduce harmful chemical use, energy waste, water waste, air pollution, solid waste, and/or chemical runoff, and be developed by Facilities Management. At Colorado State University, there is no formal documentation or plan that specifically addresses the requirements of this credit. Much of the standard practices at CSU align with the credit requirements, however formal documentation would be required to achieve this credit. Building exterior and hardscapes are rarely cleaned or painted (and per local stormwater regulations, all of the dirty wash water is diverted from storm drains to either landscaped areas or sanitary sewer). When they are power washed no chemicals or solvents are used. Sub‐
contractors are not procured often, but when necessary, environmentally friendly measures are written into the contract. Snow and ice removal on campus is addressed physically first. For remaining ice in the building entries, a magnesium chloride product is used. Education and training for proper application of the magnesium chloride is provided people who have access to the product. Sustainable options or maintenance equipment have been researched, however, electric equipment with a long enough service life have not been available. The university does use electric turf carts, but they are mainly used for trips around campus and for small maintenance jobs. Based on stakeholder interviews, it would be possible to articulate existing behavior into a plan in accordance with LEED requirements. 23 SSc3: Integrated Pest Management, Erosion Control and Landscape Management Plan Champion: Doug Nagel, Manager, Outside Services and Sandy’s Pest Control, Integrated Pest Management Contractor Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit encourages environmental best practices for pest management and landscaping. The requirements are to have in place an environmentally sensitive plan for the site addressing pests, erosion control, landscape waste, and chemical fertilizers. Generally, best practices include integrated pest management (IPM), avoiding the use of chemical fertilizers and non‐
native plantings, diverting landscape waste from landfills, and implementing and maintaining an inspection protocol for erosion and sedimentation control. For the CSU campus as a whole, an integrated pest management (IPM) sub‐contractor is employed to address all needs related to pests, interior and exterior. The sub‐contractor agreement meets the requirements of this credit related to IPM; however, a formal IPM plan would need to be developed. Additionally, standard practices for erosion control and landscape management align with the credit requirements. The erosion control standards are written in the university’s MS4 permit; however, there is no formal documentation of the landscape management plan. SSc4: Alternative Commuting Transportation Champion: LEED Administrator and Building Proctors Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 3‐15 points Yates Hall 3‐15 points NESB 3‐15 points TILT 3‐15 points Aspen Hall 3‐15 points This credit requires the collection and documentation of building occupants commuting habits. The purpose of this is to assess and, ultimately, reduce the number of conventional commuting trips made to the building. The baseline assumes that all occupants drive alone in a conventional vehicle to and from the building each day of the week. This credit is achievable to at least some degree for each of the buildings. At CSU, there are roughly 25,000 students and 6,000 faculty and staff on campus and only about 12,000 parking 24 spaces. Therefore, it is customary to use alternative transportation at the university. A university survey was conducted in 2008 regarding commuting habits for students and faculty. That survey revealed that greater than 50% of students commuted to campus using means other than single occupancy vehicles. Additionally, the results showed that about 35% of faculty and staff commute to campus using means other than single occupancy vehicles. This credit requires that a survey is conducted requesting response on commuting habits of the specific occupants of the building pursuing certification. Given the location of CSU in Fort Collins and the community culture around cycling and walking, it is highly likely that at least 10% of the building occupants in each of these buildings use alternative means for transportation. A survey, however, would need to be conducted to measure the actual transportation habits. SSc5: Site Development, Protect or Restore Open Habitat Champions: Nancy Hurt, Associate Director, CSU Real Estate Office, Kristi Buffington, Space Planning and Data Manager, and Fred Haberecht, Campus Landscape Architect Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit encourages conservation of natural site areas and/or restoring damaged site areas to provide habitat and promote biodiversity. The requirements are to have native or adapted vegetation covering at least 25% of the total site area (excluding the building footprint) or to improve or maintain off‐site areas with native or adapted vegetation for an equivalent to double the on‐site requirement (every 2 square feet off‐site can be counted as 1 square foot on‐site). Exemplary performance would be awarded for double the required area. Upon initial observation, it seemed as though this credit would not be achievable. However, CSU has vast amounts of land in conservation easements and/or protected areas, therefore CSU buildings could earn this credit through the off‐site option, with no significant capital expense using property and easements already owned by the university. An important consideration is that the Board of Directors owns the university’s lands and it is highly unlikely that the Board would devote potentially buildable land to protect native status. Therefore, the efforts for this credit would be focused on buffer zones for water ways, detention ponds, and small green patches on central campus, or on native lands on remote campuses such as Foothills Campus’ ‘Hogback Ridge’ and Pingree Park for non‐permanent use as protected lands. There are additional parcels of land including the Buckhorn and Horsetooth Tracts, as well as numerous Ranches and the Agricultural Campus. The optimal solution may be with 2,800 acres of land tied to conservation easements in Grand County and Pagosa Springs. This would effectively 25 make 2,800 acres of open space available for satisfying the requirements of this credit for numerous buildings on campus. Without further investigation, it seems as though there is enough off‐site property to earn the credit, and possibly an additional point in Innovation in Operations. SSc6: Stormwater Quantity Control Champion: Fred Haberecht, Campus Landscape Architect and Susanne Cordery‐Cotter, Environmental Engineer Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 0 points NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point The intent of this credit is to promote a high ratio of vegetated area to impervious hardscape that would naturally mitigate stormwater runoff on the project site. It is required that 15% of stormwater runoff be prevented on the site. This is measured against the baseline that assumes that the entire property is hardscape. In Colorado, there are very strict laws prohibiting rainwater retention. Therefore, this credit would only be achieved through the use of infiltration swales, detention ponds, and on‐site diversion to vegetation. Of the buildings in this study, and generally on CSU campus, rainfall on the roof is conveyed directly to the stormwater drainage with no stormwater treatment. Most of the buildings in this study, however, may have enough vegetation to infiltrate at least 15% of the precipitation falling on the site. Based on preliminary site area take‐offs, over 40% of NESB and Aspen Hall sites are vegetated, and 25% of TILT’s site area is vegetated. Clark A‐Wing and Yates Hall will be close with 16% and 15% vegetation respectively. Stormwater calculations would be required to measure actual infiltration due to vegetation and building landscaping. 26 SSc7.1: Heat Island Effect, Non‐Roof Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 1 point The intent of this credit is to decrease the amount of heat retention on a site by reducing the amount of hardscape or by increasing the solar reflective index (SRI) of the hardscape. Two options are available to follow for compliance. Option 1 requires that 50% of the non‐roof hardscape (roads, sidewalks, courtyards, parking, etc) be shaded by trees, other buildings, or solar panels. Option 2 requires that 50% of the buildings’ parking spaces are underground, covered by solar panels, or covered by a vegetated roof. Much of the main CSU campus is dense; therefore, adequate shading is provided by other buildings. The architectural features, however, have to have a Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) of at least 29, which is very light in color and not common at CSU. Additionally, none of the building sites have adequate shade from trees to meet the credit requirements. SSc7.2: Heat Island Effect, Roof Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 1 point NESB 0 points TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 0 points The intent of this credit is to decrease the amount of heat retained on the roof by installing highly reflective roofing material or by installing a vegetated roof for at least 50% of the roof area. Of the buildings in this study, none of the roofing materials comply with SRI standards and there are no plans to install vegetated roofs on the buildings in the study. TILT, however has a steep‐sloped clay tile roof that qualifies (SRI 35) and a modified bitumen low slope roof that could receive a high‐reflective roof coating with SRI >100. Yates, also, has a sloped metal penthouse roof that is a light color likely to qualify with an SRI >29, and its EPDM low slope roof could receive a high reflective roof coating. 27 TILT and Yates could qualify for the heat island credit if white coating were applied to the low slope portions. SSc8: Light Pollution Reduction Champion: Project Team; LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 1 point NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 1 point This credit addresses the reduction of light pollution from both interior and exterior lighting of a building. The requirements for interior lighting are that all non‐emergency built‐in lighting with direct line of sight to any envelope opening must be controlled to automatically turn off after hours. Additionally, lights must be turned off for at least 50% of after‐hour time and a maintenance program is employed ensuring that the automatic system is working properly. Alternatively, interior lighting that do not have a direct line of sight to the building envelope are exempt from the automatic shut‐off requirements and are qualified by three different exemption guidelines provided in the in the LEED Reference Guide. Three options may be pursued for exterior lighting, including earning this credit for another LEED rating system, shielding fixtures greater than 50 watts from the night sky, or actual measurements taken showing that exterior lighting does not increase site perimeter light levels by more than 20%. To achieve this credit, the interior lighting requirements must be met, and one of the options for exterior lighting. For exterior lighting, a campus Exterior Lighting Master Plan is in place that prescribes priorities and outlines appropriate equipment for use on the CSU main campus. This would mean that the exterior requirement to this credit would be achievable by every building. Currently, none of the buildings in this study have automatic shut‐off controls for interior lighting; therefore achievement would be contingent on the completion of distance exemption calculations. To complete this, an analysis of all fixtures with direct lines of site to the outdoors would have to be evaluated. 28 WEc1: Water Performance Measurement Champion: Fred Haberecht, Campus Landscape Architect Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 1 point This credit requires that meters be installed to measure overall and subsystem water use. Additionally, meter data must be collected at least on a weekly basis and used for optimizing water performance. There are a two points possible via two separate, but related options. Option 1 awards one point for the implementation of whole building metering to measure all water use consumed for the entire building and associated grounds. Option 2 offers an additional point on top of the achievement of option 1 by sub‐metering at least one water sub‐
system, including landscaping, indoor plumbing and fixtures, cooling tower makeup water, domestic hot water, or process water. For all buildings on campus, only indoor water usage is measured. As described in more detail in WEc3, sub‐metering the irrigation system would be cost prohibitive. This would inhibit the achievement of Option 1 and consequently Option 2. If a cost effective solution to sub‐metering were available, the two points would be achievable. Option 2 would be achieved by the current practice of sub‐metering indoor plumbing fixtures and fittings. WEc2: Additional Indoor Plumbing Fixtures and Fitting Efficiency Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 2 point NESB 2 points TILT 2 points Aspen Hall 5 points This credit would be achieved by assessing the reduction in water use established in the calculations for WE prerequisite 1: Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency. If fixtures exceed these requirements points will be awarded based on their percentage improvement over baseline. If the building was constructed or new fixtures were installed after 1993, the project will most likely earn at least two points. An occupancy and performance calculation would need to be completed to confirm the actual threshold achieved. For Aspen Hall, a 40% water savings was 29 demonstrated in the LEED NC v2.2 certification, therefore eligible to earn 5 points in LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M. Appropriate options pertaining to the buildings in this study are detailed in the WE prerequisite 1, Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency summary. WEc3: Water Efficient Landscaping Champion: Ron Robbins, Grounds Irrigation Manager and Fred Haberecht, Campus Landscape Architect Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 3 points Yates Hall 1 point NESB 0 points TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 3 points Achievement of this credit requires reduction of potable water for irrigation by 50% to 100% as compared to typical landscape irrigation in the region. There are three options available for achieving the requirements of this credit. Option 1 requires metered data to be compared with LEED online baseline; Option 2 requires theoretical calculations to estimate consumption; Option 3 requires performing an irrigation assessment with independent tools. Only one of the three options must be followed. The water used for landscaping at CSU is non‐potable surface water, from water rights owned by CSU. While the use of non‐potable water is preferred in the LEED rating system, LEED does not allow achievement of this credit when the non‐potable water comes from naturally occurring surface water sources. Therefore, CSU projects pursuing the Water Efficient Landscaping credits must demonstrate a reduction in water use, the same as projects using potable water. Colorado State University has a computerized irrigation control system for the entire campus. Most of the zones on campus are controlled and monitored on a regional level, as opposed to a building level. The metering system would allow for sub‐metering at the building level, however, each sub‐meter is very expensive. Given that CSU owns the rights to the surface water, it would be cost prohibitive to install sub‐meters to the landscape irrigation system because the cost of the water is nominal and would never provide a return on investment. Additionally, there is a disincentive to reduce irrigation water used because the university is responsible for allocating their water rights; if they don’t use the water they own, they could potentially lose those water rights. 30 Therefore, a theoretical calculation would be necessary to estimate consumption at the building level (Option 2). Through stakeholder meetings with the campus landscape architect, some of the buildings may demonstrate a reduction from the baseline given the amount of low‐
water, native or adaptive landscaping on the sites. Rough estimates for each building included a 50 to 75% reduction at Yates Hall (mostly native and adapted vegetation), 0% reduction at NESB (mostly turf), up to 75% reduction at Clark A‐Wing (native and adapted vegetation), at least 50% reduction at TILT (shaded turf and drought tolerant vegetation), and at least 75% reduction at Aspen (implementing greywater for a portion of the irrigation in 2011 and drought tolerant vegetation). WEc4: Cooling Tower Water Management Champion: Roger Elbrader, District Energy Manager and Mike Mahoney (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit requires the reduction of potable water consumption for cooling towers. There are two separate options available, each worth one point independently. WEc4.1, Chemical Management, is earned by implementing a professional water management program that effectively manages the chemicals used to treat the cooling tower makeup water, blow down, biological control, and staff training. WEc4.2, Non‐Potable Water Sources, can be achieved by itself, or in addition to the first point. This requires retrofitting and/or maintaining on‐site cooling towers to use at least 50% non‐potable water. WEc4.2 also requires the installation and maintenance of sub‐meters to track potable and non‐potable water for cooling tower make up. According to the District Energy Manager, all cooling towers at Colorado State University meet the chemical management requirements addressed in WEc4.1, including RI buildings and Auxiliary buildings. The District Energy Manager also confirmed that all documentation for WEc4.1 would be easily obtainable. It would be difficult, however, to meet the requirements for WEc4.2, Non‐potable Water Sources. While some of the cooling towers use surface water about 50% of the time, using non‐
potable surface water does not meet LEED criteria for a non‐potable water source per LEED rulings. Further, the District Energy Manager confirmed that no other form of on‐site water source would be feasible to use, concluding that these buildings would not be eligible the second point. 31 EAc1: Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 5 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 17 points The achievement of this credit is based on improving operational performance above the performance met for Prerequisite 2: Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance. There are 18 points possible and points are awarded based on incremental improvements of operational performance above an ENERGY STAR rating of 71, or over 21% of the national average. As noted in the summary of EAp2, Aspen Hall achieved an ENERGY STAR rating of 93; therefore, 17 points can be achieved for this credit. NESB is awarded 5 points based on current energy usage as determined by Portfolio Manager and Labs21. Although Yates Hall meets the prerequisite, it does not meet a point threshold (Table 4). Based on the results of the ASHRAE level 1 walkthrough, further energy saving measures may be taken to increasing efficiency and award points to Yates Hall. At this time, the other buildings in this study would not meet the requirements of this credit given that they are currently performing under the national average. EAc2.1: Existing Building Commissioning, Investigation and Analysis Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 2 points Yates Hall 2 points NESB 2 points TILT 2 points Aspen Hall 2 points Buildings with the potential for cost‐effective energy savings opportunities will see great value in pursuing this credit. There are two paths available for this credit, commissioning or ASHRAE Level II Energy Audit. For either option, it is up to the project team to decide whether or not the work can be conducted with in‐house staff or through a third party. Commissioning is generally more technical with higher first costs, however, usually leads to greater long‐term operational savings. Commissioning is well suited for newer buildings that were not commissioned following construction, buildings with indoor air quality issues and/or persistent equipment problems. The energy audit is more commonly chosen and typically easier to do 32 with in‐house staff. Energy audits are better suited for smaller, less technical buildings and/or newer buildings that were commissioned following construction. Historically, Facilities Management has contracted energy audits for select buildings at CSU and carried out the low to no cost energy improvements in‐house. Consequently, high cost energy improvements have not been implemented due to a lack of required capital, even if the improvement has a less than 5 year payback. Ideally, Facilities Management at CSU would create a retrocommisioning team that would be funded by the operational savings realized through building retrocommisioning. The challenge with creating this team is acquiring initial funding for the positions for the time period before operational savings are realized. In the meantime, in‐house ASHRAE Level II Energy Audits could be implemented to meet the requirements of this credit. Gene Ellis, Utility Services Manager, estimated the total labor hours, including walk‐throughs and data‐logging, required to conduct the energy audits for each building, as shown in Table 5. Labor Hours Aspen Hall 129 Clark A‐Wing 247 NESB 159 TILT 90 Yates Hall 181 Table 5: ASHRAE Level II Audit Estimated Labor Hours
At this time, CSU has not found a cost effective approach for retrocommisioning buildings on campus. Therefore, CSU would most likely choose to pursue the ASHRAE Level II audit option unless they were able to create a new model for performance contracting, in which case retrocommisioning would be preferred. EAc2.2: Existing Building Commissioning, Implementation Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points This credit requires the achievement of EAc2.1 and implementation of low to no cost energy improvements outlined in EAc2.1. Additionally, maintenance staff training and a summary of the capital plan for major retrofits or upgrades is required. Although this credit seems achievable under the right circumstances, it is considered unlikely and is unachievable under current budget conditions. EAc2.3: Existing Building Commissioning, Ongoing Commissioning Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager 33 Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points This credit requires the achievement of EAc2.1 and EAc2.2 in addition to the implementation of an ongoing commissioning program with a written plan. At least the first half of the first commissioning cycle must be completed prior to LEED application date. Without the in‐house commissioning team described above, ongoing commissioning is currently not achievable for any of the buildings in this study. EAc3.1: Performance Measurement: Building Automation System Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points To earn this credit, the project building must have a Building Automation System (BAS) that monitors and controls Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and lighting systems. The minimum BAS functions for HVAC include monitoring the status of sensors and controlled devices, scheduling equipment off when not in use, scheduling set points and setbacks and trending equipment status. The minimum BAS functions for lighting include scheduling lights to turn off during unoccupied times. Providing occupancy sensors for lighting is considered an acceptable level of automation for this credit. There is a BAS on campus, called MetaSYS, which controls HVAC at the level required. The major barrier for this credit is that the lights are not tied into the BAS and are not controlled by occupancy sensors. To tie lighting fixtures into the BAS the systems would need to be evaluated to confirm that the lighting systems are compatible with the Johnson Control system. Under current conditions, this credit is not achievable for any of the five buildings. 34 EAc3.2: Performance Measurement: System Level Metering Champion: Gene Ellis, Utilities Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points This credit encourages the use of building sub‐metering to analyze specific energy loads and to pin point potential areas for improvement in system level or equipment performance. The credit requires system level metering to cover 40% or 80% of total expected annual energy consumption. It also requires identification of the largest energy use categories and to sub‐
meter 80% of that consumption. If the project building has existing submetering systems, it probably makes sense to pursue this credit; if not, it can be difficult. This credit would not be achievable for any of the buildings in this study given that no sub‐
meters exist and installation would be cost prohibitive at this time. EAc4: On‐Site and Off‐Site Renewable Energy Champion: Project Team Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 points Yates Hall 1 points NESB 1 points TILT 1 points Aspen Hall 4 points There are up to six points available with this credit. They are earned by purchasing green power through renewable energy credits (RECs) or carbon offsets, the use of onsite renewable energy, or through a combination of the two. The credit requires meeting up to 12% of the total energy use with onsite renewable energy, or up to 100% with off‐site renewables. All of the buildings in this study could purchase RECs for a portion of the buildings energy use, however, major energy improvements would need to be implemented in Clark A‐Wing and Yates Hall before purchasing RECs would be economically feasible. Aspen Hall has purchased RECs for 70% of total estimated energy use; however, the expiration date of the green power contract would need to be evaluated at the time of certification. 35 HDS currently purchases RECs for a portion of the residential halls and RECs have been purchased for all the new construction on campus. However, RECs are not routinely purchased for existing RI buildings. EAc5: Enhanced Refrigerant Management Champion: Dan Rohleder, Remote Boiler and Chiller Supervisor; Rick Pott, Facility Planning and Project Coordinator (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 0 points TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit encourages significant reduction or elimination of all refrigerants used in base building systems. It also promotes the use of refrigerants that have the lowest global warming potential. For projects using refrigerants, credit compliance is documented by the “total refrigerant impact per ton” value, which must be less than or equal to 100. The variables in this calculation are the type of base building systems, the efficiency and leakage rates of the equipment, the life of the equipment, and the overall environmental impact of those refrigerants in terms of ozone depletion and global warming potential. NESB is the only building within our scope that uses its own on‐site chiller and the total refrigerant impact per ton is greater than 100. Clark A‐Wing, TILT, and Yates Hall are on a District Energy System (DES). LEED addresses the use of a DES as they specifically relate to many credits. For projects served by a DES, LEED requires that all upstream (remote) and downstream (on‐site) equipment to document compliance with the credit requirements. The total refrigerant impact per ton was calculated for the main campus chill water utility, which serves these buildings, and the value is less than 100. Aspen Hall is part of a DES that uses a 30XA AQUAFORCE 100 ton air cooled chiller. This chiller is set to only run during off peak rate times and only if ice production is not at full capacity. Based on preliminary calculations, Aspen Hall’s chiller has a total refrigerant impact of less than 100. Table 6 shows the total refrigerant impact per ton, per building. Additionally, none of the buildings’ fire suppression systems use CFC, HCFC, or halons. Aspen Hall Total Refrigerant 57 Impact Clark A‐Wing 71 NESB 148 TILT 71 Yates Hall 71 Table 6: Total Refrigerant Impact Per Ton 36 EAc6: Emissions Reductions Reporting Champion: Carol Dollard, Energy Engineer Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point In order to achieve this credit, each building must report emissions reductions using a third‐
party voluntary reporting or certification program, e.g. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Climate Leaders, ENERGY STAR, or World Resources Institute / World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD) protocols). Currently, CSU reports the campus greenhouse gas inventory using Clean Air Cool Planet, which adheres to the WRI/WBCSD protocols. The results are publically reported through the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment website. MRc1: Sustainable Purchasing, Ongoing Consumables Champion: Karyn LeBlanc, Materials Supervisor (HDS) and Farrah Bustamante, Strategic Sourcing Specialist (Purchasing) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point The achievement of this credit is based on the cost of environmentally preferable purchases compared to the cost of total, ongoing consumables purchased. This credit requires that a minimum of 60% of ongoing consumables, by cost, meet sustainability criteria. Ongoing consumables are considered regularly replaced, low cost per unit, items, such as paper (printing and copy paper, notebooks, envelopes, etc), toner cartridges, binders, batteries, and desk accessories. The challenge with demonstrating compliance with this credit, especially for universities, is in tracking the purchases.
Tracking ongoing consumables at Aspen Hall would be possible because Housing and Dining Services track purchasing per building. For RI buildings, purchases are tracked by department which will make purchasing tracking by building more challenging as there are often multiple departments per building. In this case, purchases by the building occupants would need to be tracked during the performance period, separate from the conventional process, for the 37 purposes of LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification. While it would be a logistical challenge, it would be feasible. Given current purchasing practices, this credit would be achievable for all RI and Housing and Dining Services buildings on campus. MRc2: Sustainable Purchasing, Durable Goods Champion: Karyn LeBlanc, Materials Supervisor (HDS) and Farrah Bustamante, Strategic Sourcing Specialist (Purchasing) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points For this credit, durable goods are generally considered as either furniture or electronics that are infrequently replaced. The credit requires 40% (by cost) of electric powered equipment (MRc2.1) and/or furniture purchased (MRc2.2) during the performance period to meet at least one sustainability criteria. For electric‐powered equipment the sustainability criteria are to be either Energy Star certified, or battery or corded‐electric equipment that replaces gas‐powered equipment. For furniture, the sustainability criteria are that the product consists of recycled content, salvaged material, rapidly renewable, certified wood, and/or regional materials. If no durable goods are purchased during the performance period this credit cannot be achieved; however materials purchased within 2 years of the end date of the performance period can be included. Stakeholders from both Housing and Dining Services and Purchasing have stated that they currently try to purchase the most sustainable electronic equipment that is economical and available. The University purchases furniture through a specific contractor and the availability of sustainable options are usually too limited. The campus‐wide sustainable purchasing policy would extend to the purchases of durable goods, although it would not include furniture. Because the achievement of this credit is based on practices during the performance period, this credit would need to be evaluated at the time that certification is pursued. Based on current culture and practices, it seems that MRc2.1 would be feasible with little foresight, though MRc2.2 is not feasible given the current purchasing requirements for furniture on campus. 38 MRc3: Sustainable Purchasing, Facility Alterations and Additions Champion: Mike Davis, Remodel and Construction Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point To achieve this credit, 50% of purchases, by cost, for alterations and additions (excluding furniture, fixtures, and equipment) must meet specific sustainability criteria. An example of sustainability criteria is purchasing products containing at least 10% postconsumer and/or 20% postindustrial material. Each purchase must meet at least one or more of the sustainability criteria to comply. Materials for alterations or additions must be purchased during the performance period to earn points for the credit. All purchases, those that comply with sustainability criteria and those that do not, must all be recorded. Similar to MRc2, eligibility of the credit is dependent upon whether or not a renovation or alteration takes place during the performance period. A challenge with this credit is communicating the requirements of this credit to the Architect so that they are appropriately specified during the design process. If pursued, all purchases, compliant and non‐compliant, must be tracked and documented. Note: all renovations and alterations must be completed before the start of the performance period. MRc4: Sustainable Purchasing, Reduced Mercury in Lamps Champion: Kathy Brandon, Commodity Buyer, (HDS); Farrah Bustamante, Strategic Sourcing Specialist (Purchasing) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point The intent of this credit is to reduce overall average mercury exposure through consideration of mercury content in purchased lamps. This credit requires a purchasing plan such that 90% of purchased mercury‐containing lamps comply during the performance period and meet the overall target for mercury content of 90 picograms per lumen‐hour. CSU does not have a lighting purchasing plan that specifies maximum levels of mercury permitted in mercury‐containing lamps purchased for the building and associated grounds, 39 though these requirements could be addressed in the sustainable purchasing policy that is under development. Current practices indicate that this credit is feasible with the understanding that the plan would have to be written. MRc5: Sustainable Purchasing, Food Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points This credit requires at least 25%, by cost, of food and beverage purchases during the performance period meet specific sustainable criteria. Some of the criteria include USDA Certified Organic, Food Alliance Certified, items produced within 100 mile radius of the site, and/or fair trade items. There is no university purchased food in any of the five buildings. There is also no authority to influence occupants’ personal purchasing decisions. This credit is unachievable for all the buildings in this study. MRc6: Solid Waste Management, Waste Stream Audit Champion: Sheela Backen, Solid Waste Stream Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit requires the project team to conduct a waste stream audit of entire ongoing consumables waste stream. It is important to analyze the entire waste stream and not just a representative sample. This audit must be comprehensive of both waste and recyclables. Once a waste audit is performed, results must be recorded and data and audit procedures should be documented into a formal report. It is standard practice to conduct waste stream audits on select buildings on campus and could be facilitated by Facilities Management. For the purposes of certification, a waste stream audit could be requested. 40 MRc7: Solid Waste Management, Ongoing Consumables Champion: Sheela Backen, Integrated Solid Waste Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit builds off of the waste management policy developed in MRp2 and requires implementation of that policy. To achieve the point for the credit, 50% of the waste stream, including dry cell batteries, must be reused, recycled, or composted during the performance period. A current program is in place to divert waste from the landfill. In FY 2010, Colorado State University recycled 53.1% of their waste. Additionally, there is a battery recycling program that is managed by Facilities Management that also takes place on the university campus. Current practices indicate that the requirements of this credit are feasible for all buildings at CSU. MRc8: Solid Waste Management, Durable Goods Champion: Sheela Backen, Integrated Solid Waste Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point To achieve this credit, 75% of the durable goods in the waste stream must be reused or recycled. Waste could be donated or given to a responsible waste recycler or it could be salvaged through internal reuse, resell or donation At CSU, most of durable goods are diverted from the landfill through Surplus Property, making this credit achievable for each of the buildings in our study. 41 MRc9: Solid Waste Management, Facility Alterations and Additions Champion: Mike Davis, Remodel and Construction Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit requires that 70% or more of waste generated by alterations and additions must be diverted from the landfill. In order to be eligible for this credit, however, alterations must have taken place during the performance period. At CSU, it is standard practice to recycle as much construction waste as possible on all university facility alterations and additions. In order to get a realistic view of the feasibility, reports could be run for past projects to evaluate the amount of waste diverted. The feasibility would be dependent upon the schedule of alterations or additions for the building pursuing certification. IEQc1.1: IAQ Best Management Practices, Indoor Air Quality Management Program Champion: Jeff Sutton, Building Operations Services Manager, Lewis Sutphin, Operations Director (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points This credit requires the development and implementation of an ongoing indoor air quality (IAQ) management plan intended to maintain good IAQ and to prevent future IAQ issues. The ongoing IAQ management program should be based on the Indoor Air Quality Building Education and Assessment Model (I‐BEAM). Achievement of this credit would entail creating a management plan that, when effectively used, could cover requirements for MRc3: Sustainable Purchasing, Facility Alterations and Additions, IEQc1.5: IAQ Best Management Practices, Facility Alterations and Additions, and IEQc3.6: Green Cleaning, Indoor Integrated Pest Management. This includes conducting educational modules for someone on the operational staff, which is feasible at CSU. Currently, there is no formal plan; however there is a procedure for dealing with IAQ complaints. While it would most likely be possible to find the time to conduct the audit, however, the barrier lies in 42 the feasibility of having the staff and time. Additional time will be needed to review the I‐BEAM education models, tailor the audit forms to the project building, and prepare a report of the findings. If given the time, this credit could be achievable for the buildings in our study, but would require the gathering of the required information. Having the time, however, is a barrier, at this time. IEQc1.2: IAQ Best Management Practices, Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring Champion: Jeff Sutton, Building Operations Services Manager; Lewis Sutphin, Operations Director (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit requires the installation of permanent continuous monitoring systems. For each project, select compliance paths are available based on the projects occupancy, density and ventilation method (mechanical or natural). This is most easily achieved by buildings that already have a Building Automation System (BAS). The BAS should alert building operators when outdoor airflow in the building drops more than 15% below the set point. If the building contains densely occupied spaces, CO2 sensors must be supplied. HVAC points are monitored by the MetaSYS system (Johnson Controls BAS). Further research would have to be completed to understand whether all points are correctly mapped in the buildings within our scope of this study to confirm credit compliance, though preliminary analysis suggests it would be feasible. Adding points costs $1000 to $1500 per point for labor and equipment. Depending on further research, this credit may be achievable for the buildings within our scope. 43 IEQc1.3: IAQ Best Management Practices, Increased Ventilation Champion: Jeff Sutton, Building Operations Services Manager; Lewis Sutphin, Operations Director (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit is similar to IEQ prerequisite 1; however this credit requires additional outdoor air ventilation by at least 30% above than the ASHRAE standard. If the measured ventilation rate from each AHU meets the requirement, only documentation of credit compliance is necessary. If that ventilation rate cannot be met, HVAC equipment would need to be adjusted to provide higher rates. If that is not possible, or desired, this credit would not be worth pursuing. Of the buildings in this study, Aspen Hall currently meets the additional ventilation requirements. Some buildings have excess capacity built into the fan sizing, but without heat recovery, this additional ventilation would have a negative impact on building energy performance. Further research would have to be completed to be sure that each system would be able to handle these requirements; however this is a credit that would not likely not be pursued for our the buildings other than Aspen Hall. IEQc1.4: IAQ Best Management Practices, Reduced Particles in Air Distribution Champion: Jeff Sutton, Building Operations Services Manager; Lewis Sutphin, Operations Director (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points This credit requires the use of MERV 13 filters at all outside air intakes and at all inside air‐
recirculation returns. MERV 13 filters provide higher air quality to occupants and remove pollutants. It is not common practice at CSU to use MERV 13 filters because the equipment cannot handle the added power required to move the minimum airflow needed and/or the added energy cost is not preferred. 44 IEQc1.5: IAQ Best Management Practices, Facility Alterations and Additions Champion: Mike Davis, Remodels and Construction Services Manager Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit can be achieved by developing an indoor air quality (IAQ) management plan for facility alterations or additions. Additionally, this credit can be achieved without an alteration or addition occurring during the performance period. In addition to the IAQ management plan, a building flush out is required of all projects after all interior work is completed. The plan must also meet or exceed SMACNA control measures. IAQ management plans meeting the SMACNA guidelines are implemented on all new construction, alterations, and renovations on campus. Therefore, this credit is feasible for all campus buildings as long as a flush out can be done, though documentation would need to be acquired. IEQc2.1: Occupant Comfort, Occupant Survey Champion: Building Proctors and Project Team Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point For this credit an occupant comfort survey must be implemented to collect feedback on indoor environmental comfort and corrective action is required if 20% or more of the occupants are dissatisfied on any criteria. This survey should include anonymous feedback on temperature, acoustics, indoor air quality (IAQ), lighting levels, and building cleanliness. This credit would be achievable for all buildings in the study, as long as there is a commitment to take corrective action, if necessary. While corrective action could include simple things like adjusting set points, there is a potential that higher cost repairs or changes would be required. 45 IEQc2.2: Controllability of Systems, Lighting Champion: Project Team; LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 points Yates Hall 1 points NESB 1 points TILT 1 points Aspen Hall 1 points This credit requires that at least 50% of building occupants are provided individual lighting controls. Individual occupants can control every space in each building, many times at multiple levels, e.g. task lighting. IEQc2.3: Occupant Comfort, Thermal Comfort Monitoring Champion: Rick Pott, Facility Planning and Project Coordinator (HDS) and Building Proctors Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 0 points TILT 0 points Aspen Hall 0 points To achieve this credit, continuous monitoring, periodic testing, and an alarm and response system must be provided to ensure that comfort meets the ASHRAE 55‐2004 standard. To comply with these requirements continuous monitoring of temperature and humidity, as well as periodic measurements of air speed and radiant temperature, must be addressed. Automatic sensors measuring air temperature and humidity must be taken at 15‐minute intervals at a maximum. Also, once a year these same measurements must be taken by handheld instruments. Campus thermal controls are controlled by the BAS (MetaSYS). Each thermal control is linked to this system and will go into alert if there is a problem. This is the first line of maintenance response. In Colorado humidity is naturally within a reasonable range; therefore, humidity is not typically monitored. Based on stakeholder interviews, air speed and temperature are not monitored at the level required for this credit. Therefore, this credit is not achievable for the buildings on campus. 46 IEQc2.4: Daylight and Views Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 0 points Yates Hall 0 points NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point There are two options for pursuing this credit, either through adequate daylight or adequate access to outdoor views. The daylight option requires that 50% of all regularly occupied spaces are adequately daylit. There are four different calculation paths that can be followed to document compliance in the spaces. The views option requires that a direct line of sight to the outdoors between 30” and 90” above the finished floor for at least 45% of all regularly occupied spaces. Compliance is documented by drawing lines of sight on plan and section view drawings. For Aspen Hall, this credit is easily achievable. Documentation would have to be provided to confirm that it achieved a credit for daylight in its previous LEED certification. Based on an initial building walk‐through, Yates Hall will not qualify for Option 2, access to outdoor views. Daylight analysis could be considered, though daylight levels are not likely to be adequate. TILT and NESB should qualify for Option 2, access to outdoor views, though final drawings would be required to confirm. Clark A‐wing would not qualify for either option. IEQc3.1: Green Cleaning, High‐Performance Cleaning Program Champion: Jeff Sutton, Building Operations Manager Services; Thorbon Sellars, Data Entry Operator; Bill Jenkins, Commodity Buyer (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit involves enhancing the policy developed for IEQp3, Green Cleaning Policy. The enhancements include issuing the policy and program to all relevant personnel, ensuring that the policy and program is being observed by at least 90% of the building. 47 It is apparent that CSU’s custodial services are already implementing many components of the green cleaning policy. Attempting to be leaders in the industry, the custodial services department is currently implementing upgrades in staffing and programming, including taking part in Clean Cost Analysis Program (CCAP), and the Custodial Industry Management Standard (CIMS), which is a non‐prescriptive process for managing custodial services in Lieu of GS 37 or GS 41 certification. CCAP will allow custodial services to properly distribute man power and establish a baseline for chemical needs by gathering objective data of spaces. Additionally, CCAP will offer access to the documentation needed for this credit. Currently, the greatest barrier is that there is no formal documentation of a policy, program, and/or inventories. CCAP is an opportunity to bridge this barrier. With proper documentation and training, IEQc3.1 would be achievable for all the buildings in this study. IEQc3.2: Green Cleaning, Custodial Effectiveness Assessment Champion: Thorbon Sellers, Data Entry Operator; Lil Oppie, Environmental Zone Supervisor, (HDS) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 points Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 points TILT 1 points Aspen Hall 1 point This credit requires a custodial audit following APPA guidelines. Once conducted, a score of three or less must be achieved. The project can earn an exemplary performance credit for earning a score of a two or less. It is important that if in‐house auditors are used that they are familiar and clear with APPA guidelines and audit procedures. CSU custodial services conduct APPA custodial audits on a yearly basis for HDS buildings and RI buildings. Typically, the RI buildings score between level 2 and 3. Aspen Hall scores at least level 2 and strives towards level 1. All buildings would earn at least one point, and an Exemplary Performance credit could be achieved for all buildings scoring a 1 or 2. IEQc3.3: Green Cleaning, Purchase of Sustainable Cleaning Products and Materials Champion: Farrah Bustamante, Strategic Sourcing Specialist (Purchasing) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point 48 This credit requires that 30% of cleaning product purchased meet sustainability criteria. Data sheets must be collected for at least 20% of purchases to demonstrate compliance. All purchases must be documented through LEED online. This credit would be covered by the university‐wide purchasing policy that is in review, outlined in MRp1: Sustainable Purchasing Policy. Currently, much of the cleaning products purchased meet the sustainability criteria listed in the LEED Existing Buildings: O&M rating system. IEQc3.4: Green Cleaning, Sustainable Cleaning Equipment Champion: Farrah Bustamante, Strategic Sourcing Specialist (Purchasing) Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point In order to be eligible for this credit, at least one piece of sustainable cleaning equipment must be used during the performance period. Additionally, 20% of all existing cleaning equipment must comply with the green equipment‐specific criteria, and 100% of equipment purchased during the performance period must comply with the criteria. For Aspen Hall, this is feasible because the buildings’ cleaning equipment currently meet the criteria. For RI buildings, an inventory would need to be gathered in order to understand what equipment is being used and how much of the equipment meets the criteria. IEQc3.5: Green Cleaning, Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit requires ten feet of entryway systems at main building entrances, such as mats, grilles, or grates, and a maintenance plan for keeping them clean. Depending on the building, this may be a credit the project team decides not to pursue due to building limitations. Documentation for this credit simply includes a floor plan that notes the location of entryway systems. 49 Currently, the buildings within our scope do not have ten feet of entryway systems at main building entrances; however, some length of entryway mats are typical on campus. Therefore, it would be feasible to provide 10‐foot mats for the purposes of achieving this credit. One unevaluated limitation is whether vestibules limit the allowable length of the entryway system; however, entryway mats could extend into the building, if necessary. IEQc3.6 Green Cleaning, Indoor Integrated Pest Management Champion: Sandy’s Pest Control, Integrated Pest Management sub‐contractor Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point The achievement of this credit is dependent on the development of an integrated pest management (IPM) plan and its implementation 100% of the time. It is also beneficial to consider integration of a plan for this credit and for outdoor pest management addressed in SSc3: Integrated Pest Management Erosion Control and Landscape Management Plan. Pest control at CSU is sub‐contracted and for over 10 years an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan has been written in the contract. Other than what is in the contract, no formal IPM plan has been written. As written, CSU’s IPM contract that Sandy’s Pest Control addresses the LEED requirements and this credit can be achieved for all buildings. IOc1: Innovation in Operations: Exemplary Performance Champion: LEED Administrator One way to achieve Innovations in Operations credit is by going above and beyond credit requirements to achieve Exemplary Performance. All Exemplary Performance points are preliminarily decided and are illustrated in Table 7. Further research and documentation would need to be pursued in order to confirm compliance. SSc5: Site Development, Protect or Restore open habitat IEQc3.2: Green Cleaning: Custodial Effectiveness Assessment TOTAL Aspen Hall 1 Clark A‐
Wing 1 NESB TILT 1 1 Yates Hall 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Table 7: Quantification of Exemplary Performance
50 IOc2: LEED Accredited Professional Champion: LEED Administrator Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point LEED offers an Innovation in Operations credit for project that have a LEED Accredited Professional on the team. This simply allows the project team to gain a more in depth understanding of the rating system. There are several LEED Accredited Professionals on the Colorado State University campus that could be a principal participant on the project. Therefore this credit would be achieved for all buildings within this study. IOc3: Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts Champion: Project Team Possible Achievement Clark A‐Wing 1 point Yates Hall 1 point NESB 1 point TILT 1 point Aspen Hall 1 point This credit involves an assessment of overall operating expenses and costs of improvements made during the LEED performance period. Further investigation would be required to confirm possible achievement, however, it is likely that this would be achievable given the university’s current practice of energy improvement cost analysis and impacts. RPc1: Regional Priority Champion: LEED Administrator LEED recognizes regional differences, and awards extra points for project teams that can achieve certain credits that have more environmental importance in particular regions. These credits vary by location and are determined based on zip code. LEED provides six optional regional priority credits, of which project teams can choose to pursue up to four. 51 Potential Regional Priority credits are illustrated in Table 8. Further research and documentation would need to be pursued in order to confirm compliance. The achievement of SSc4: Alternative Commuting and Transportation would be based on the occupant survey. Aspen Hall SSc4: Alternative Commuting Transportation (50%) SSc6: Stormwater Quantity Control WEc2: Additional Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency (30%) WEc3: Water Efficient Landscaping, Non‐Potable Water EAc1: Optimize Energy Performance 95+ rating/ 45th Percentile EAc4: Onsite/Offsite Renewable Energy, 12%/100% TOTAL NESB TILT ? Clark A‐
Wing ? ? ? Yates Hall ? 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 Table 8: Quantification of Regional Priority Conclusions The results show that the operations and maintenance staff are dedicated to sustainability and improving building efficiency on campus. As a result, current CSU practices align with many of the LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M requirements. What is striking about this finding is that the hardest part ‐ cultivating a mentality around sustainability ‐ is already present. The challenge for CSU, like most universities, will be to implement these policies and practices and pursue certification one building at a time. Additionally, many of CSU’s buildings would require significant resources – money and labor hours – in order to bring the condition of the buildings to the minimum requirements eligible for certification. Furthermore, given the documentation and coordination effort necessary for each certification, CSU would need to hire a LEED administrator to manage this process. Currently state funding is very limited and the university is experiencing dramatic budget cuts. As a result, the university has no funds to support this additional effort. While some utilities savings have been allocated to energy improvement projects, larger allocations for more significant improvements have yet to be approved. Assuming the budget situation improves and financing can be secured, the largest issue identified in the report is meeting minimum energy performance and water efficiency requirements. 52 Prerequisite WEp1 EAp1 EAp2 EAp3 MRp1 MRp2 IEQp1 IEQp2 IEQp3 Aspen Hall Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Clark A‐Wing N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y NESB Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y TILT Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Yates Hall Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Table 9: LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Building Prerequisite Compliance
As shown in Table 9, if CSU had the upfront capital to pursue certification, some CSU buildings would be good candidates for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M given that they currently meet all of the minimum requirements. Conversely, others may not be good candidates because they either do not meet minimum requirements or the site and building conditions are not conducive to the LEED rating system. For example, for Clark A‐Wing or TILT, significant time and resources would be required to bring the energy intensity down to meet or exceed minimum energy performance requirements. The university would benefit greatly from having an in‐house retrocommisioning team. This group would carry out the AHSRAE Level I and Level II Energy Audits, in addition to the ongoing commissioning requirements laid out in LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M. This team would require upfront funds for salaries, commissioning activities, and improvements, which cannot be allocated in the current budget situation. However, if initial funding can be secured, examples from other universities show that these teams can be self‐funding over time. The findings also show that there are logistical gap issues to overcome with university buildings that house multiple departments. University policies can be implemented at a department level, but not on a building level, which poses a challenge with communication for buildings that house multiple departments. Inspiring departments to work together and identify champions will be critical in pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M on campus. Finally, there is a great opportunity to engage students in this process, which has a two‐fold effect: The students learn by performing and developing relevant professional skills, and the university saves time and money by utilizing students for otherwise costly documentation needs. When funding can be secured for the certification effort, it is clear that many CSU buildings will be good candidates for LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification. 53 ROADMAP TO LEED FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS: O&M CERTIFICATION FOR CSU
Funding opportunities Historically, utility savings from previous energy upgrades have been used to help fund some energy projects at CSU, though no formal funding mechanism or program exists. One opportunity for CSU is to develop a formal funding mechanism to support future energy efficiency measures in existing campus buildings. CalTech University, for example, has made this connection between their capital and operational accounts by initiating the “CalTech Energy Conservation Investment Program.” This program provides a mechanism for borrowing money from a revolving fund that is supported by the endowment. The savings generated on utilities is used to pay back the endowment. The money borrowed is used for energy conservation measures, e.g. retrocommisioning. One requirement of their program is that the money is only invested in projects with a 6‐year payback or less. They forecast that by 2011, they will reduce their campus energy bill by 10%. USGBC has collaborated with universities to understand and promote innovative funding mechanisms that have been utilized to implement sustainability initiatives on campus. One suggestion is to set up a financing working group to research options and develop a plan that integrates financing strategies with existing capital, operations and maintenance, and procurement budgets. USGBC has published The Roadmap to a Green Campus, 9 which gives extensive direction and support for universities looking to implement successful sustainability initiatives. Additionally, the National Association of College and University Business Officers 10 is an excellent resource for to help develop financial solutions to funding green campus initiatives. Recently, they published a comprehensive handbook, Financing Sustainability on Campus, which offers strategies, tools, and programs. 9
http://www.centerforgreenschools.org/campus‐roadmap.aspx 10
http://www.nacubo.org 54 Immediate Next Steps The following list outlines next steps and starting points for pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M certification on one or more buildings at CSU. 1.
Identify best candidate for pursuing LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M a.
Estimate project improvements needed for meeting minimum requirements i.
b.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
ii.
Set up a financing working group to research innovative funding opportunities for upgrades and retrofits that have a healthy payback and to identify funding for LEED certification costs Prepare cost model iii.
Identify staffing requirements Implement occupant behavior engagement program Secure funding mechanism to support LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M project implementation, including: a.
Project water and energy improvements b.
In‐house stakeholders who’s contribution to the certification process becomes part of their every day job duties c.
Project managers and LEED administrator i.
Hire a third party LEED administrator ii.
Hire student interns Assign appropriate action items to team members (see below) Begin policy implementation process through acceptable entity (University policy or through Departments) Finalize previously proposed LEED site boundaries and develop site plan with site specific calculations Discuss retro‐commissioning process, evaluate benefits of ongoing commissioning team Schedule of performance periods Some prerequisites and credits in LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M require a performance period, which consists of the collection of operational data and other documentation (utility data, recycling rates, ventilation rates, procurement records, policies and plans in place). This performance period must be the most recent period of operations before pursuing certification. Generally, the minimum period is three months, and can be extended to a maximum of 24 months. The only exception to this is Energy and Atmosphere prerequisite 2 55 and credit 1, which both have longer minimum requirements of a year. All performance periods must overlap and end within one month of each other. It is recommended that, whenever possible, all performance periods should be longer to encompass possible seasonal variation and should be the same length. All policies, programs, plans, and upgrades should be implemented before the commencement of a performance period to ensure that any major changes can be documented. Strategically planning performance periods around key operational procedures (i.e. waste stream audits) can be beneficial to achieving the most points. LEED Certification Action Items The following action items are provided per credit to address the outstanding actions in order to achieve each credit. These items can be applicable to the LEED Administrator or to the project team as a whole. Credit Number SSc1 SSc2 SSc3 SSc4 SSc5 SSc6 SSc8 WEp1/c2 Action Item Secure final LEED scorecard, if applicable Formalize both new and existing best management practices into a comprehensive plan and incorporate into operations, including vendor contracts Develop meaningful way of tracking performance Formalize both new and existing best management practices into a comprehensive plan and incorporate into operations including vendor contracts For 100% of the time implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan: Coordinate with IEQc3.6 to combine requirements indoor and outdoor IPM’s For a minimum of 20% of the time implement and track performance of Landscaping waste, mulch or compost waste, and Fertilizer use. Make sure that IPM aligns with LEED requirements Conduct an occupant survey at the conclusion of 5 consecutive workdays, make sure LEED survey protocol is met Collect and assess data Combine this survey with survey required for IEQ 2.1: Occupant Comfort Survey Make necessary changes based on results. Document areas of protected or restored habitat Plan for, or document existing plan for regular care and maintenance to ensure ongoing health of ecosystems. Compile inventory of surfaces and runoff Compile inventory capacity for collection, detention and infiltration Document for compliance Create inventory for all fixtures with a direct line of sight to the outdoors Complete calculations to assess exemptions Test fixtures with unknown flush/flow rates For Aspen Hall, demonstrate that the building earned a water reduction point under previous LEED certification system For NESB, and Yates, systems completed 1993 or later, document completion date of building and when fixtures were upgraded 56 WEc1 WEc3 EAc2.2 EAc3.1 EAp3 EAc4 EAc5 MRc3 MRc4 IEQp3 IEQc1.3 IEQc3.3 IEQc3.5 For TILT, building built before 1993 but has replaced all fixtures since, document that all compliant fixtures meet code. For Clark A‐Wing, create an inventory of quantity, make, and flow/flush rates of all fixtures, set up fixture groups in LEED online, and calculate if water usage exceeds LEED baseline Implement a preventative maintenance program to inspect all fixtures and fittings and ensure ongoing performance levels. Understand potential of savings associated with reductions from adding submeters. Complete the necessary calculations for the projects landscape area to determine compliance Determine financial feasibility of implementing building commissioning Determine if lighting systems in each building are compatible with the Johnson Control system Ensure that the minimum BAS functions with regards to HVAC can be met Complete LEED‐Online credit form for all buildings Identify the cost of RECs and determine if they could be economically feasible Record product information on all refrigerants used in base building systems in the LEED online credit form for NESB, and for separate DES Determine calculation to find the “total refrigerant impact per ton” value. Alterations or additions must be taking place during the performance period All purchases, compliant and non‐compliant, must be tracked and documented. Create an inventory of existing mercury containing lamps in the building and on grounds. Document a table representing the Lamp Purchasing Plan, identify a list of low‐
mercury, high efficiency lamps approved by the project team to use as replacements as existing lamps burn out over time. Document a table which serves as a record of all lamp purchases made during the performance period Identify existing green cleaning products and procedures Identify how training is handled for cleaning staff Develop a documented policy that is comprehensive of basic goals for the other green cleaning credits Understand the fan sizing capacity of the AHU’s in our building to assess if increased ventilation is possible Identify all points of purchase within a project building Assess which products currently meet LEED criteria Source additional cleaning products that meet criteria Assess what, if any, entry way systems are currently in use Determine if changes can be made to comply with the credit requirement 57 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Building Characteristics Architect Aspen Hall Aller Lingle Architects Clark A‐Wing Eugene Groves NESB Oz Architecture 87,841 TILT Larsen Williams Architecture 77,000 Yates Hall James M. Hunter & Associates 102,101 GSF 67,093 NET New Construction GSF Renovated GSF Unrenovated GSF ASF Learning SF Unconditioned GSF Building Footprint Number of stories, exclude basement Basement Natural Gas Electric Fuel Oil Biofuels District Heat Renewables Municipal Water Well Water Sewage Municipal Year of Construction/ Renovation ENERGY STAR eligible Refrigerant Used 57,861 67,093 48,215 31,562 0 79,060 0 70,493 0 90,340 0 ‐ ‐ 39,637 ‐ 4,260 12,092 31,562 ‐ 18,234 2,473 ‐ 12,738 ‐ ‐ 50,491 45,964 8,456 12,104 ‐ ‐ 46,522 14,867 ‐ 22,873 30,628 71,473 48,204 30,797 ‐ 61,257 6 2 6 3 2 Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y 2009 Y N Y N N Y N Y N Y 1928/2009 N Y Y N N Y N Y N Y 2001 Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y 1995 Y Y Y N N Y N Y N Y 1966 Y N N N N R‐134a R‐134a R‐134a R‐134a R‐134a 58 Appendix B: Preliminary Site Boundaries and Area Take‐offs 59 Clark-A Low Water Plants 11,180 SF
Clark Site Area 68,559 SF
Clark-A Hardscape Brick 2,097 SF
Clark-A Hardscape Concrete 21,764 SF
Clark-A Hardscape Gravel 2,527 SF
Clark-A Roof Area 30,483 SF
Clark-A (30% of Scale); LEED Boundries CSU Campus; 2-3-2011 9-56-34; 2/16/2011 04:42 PM
Yates Turf Grass 420 SF
Yates Site Area 32,445 SF
Yates Low Water Plants 3,884 SF
Yates Hardscape Gravel 1,489 SF
Yates Hardscape Concrete 14,686 SF
Yates Roof Area 16,585 SF
Yates (30% of Scale); LEED Boundries CSU Campus; 2-3-2011 9-56-34; 2/16/2011 04:42 PM
NESB Ste Area 77,152 SF
NESB Turf Grass 33,695 SF
NESB Low Water Plants 1,147 SF
NESB Hardscape Concrete 16,425 SF
NESB Shade Tree (Use this to Subtract from Hardscape) 882 SF
NESB Roof Area 28,347 SF
NESB (30% of Scale); LEED Boundries CSU Campus; 2-3-2011 9-56-34; 2/16/2011 04:42 PM
TILT Site Area 26,036 SF
TILT Truf Grass 4,092 SF
TILT Low Water Plants 2,328 SF
TILT Hardscape Ramp??? 623 SF
TILT Hardscape Concrete 5,786 SF
TILT Roof Area 12,745 SF
TILT (30% of Scale); LEED Boundries CSU Campus; 2-3-2011 9-56-34; 2/16/2011 04:42 PM
LEED NC v2.2 Aspen Hall Site Plan Submittal
TREES
Code
CA3
GT
TC
Qty
2
3
4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Crataegus ambigua
Gleditsia triacanthos inermis 'Skyline'
Tilia cordata
Hawthorn, Russian
Honeylocust, Skyline
Linden, Littleleaf
Scientific Name
Common Name
Amelanchier alnifolia
Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'
Cornus stolonifera 'Isanti'
Miscanthus sinensis 'Gracillimus'
Panicum virgatum
Sambucus pubens
Schizachyrium scoparium
Symphoricarpos x chenaulti 'Hancock'
Serviceberry, Saskatoon
Grass, Feather Reed
Dogwood, Isanti
Grass, Maiden
Grass, Switch
Elder, Native Red Berried
Grass, Littlee Bluestem
Coralberry, Hancock
Scientific Name
Common Name
Vinca minor 'Bowles Variety'
Periwinkle, Bowles
Mature Height ft
Min
Max
15
25
40
50
30
40
Mature Sprd ft
Water Req
Min
Max
15
20
Low
30
40
Low
30
40
Medium
Exposure
Sun
Sun
Sun
Cont
B&B
B&B
B&B
Size
1.5" Cal
2" Cal
2" Cal
Mature Height ft
Min
Max
6
12
4
5
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
12
3
4
2
3
Mature Sprd ft
Water Req
Min
Max
6
12
Low
1.50
2.00
Low
4
6
Medium
4
5
Medium
1.50
2.00
Low
6
12
Medium
2.00
2.50
Low
3
6
Low
Exposure
Sun to Filtered Shade
Sun to Filtered Shade
Adaptable
Sun
Sun
Sun to Filtered Shade
Sun
Sun to Filtered Shade
Cont
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Size
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
1 Gal
1 Gal
5 Gal
1 Gal
5 Gal
Mature Height ft
Min
Max
0.33
0.50
Mature Sprd ft
Water Req
Min
Max
1.00
1.50
Low
Exposure
Adaptable
Cont
Flat
Size
F32(2 1/4" Pots)
SHRUBS
Code
AA
CA
CI
MG
PV
SP
SS
SC
Qty
3
35
11
23
35
4
91
28
SHRUB AREAS
Code
VC
Qty
12
Trees
Code
CO
CA3
MS
QM
QS
TC
Qty
2
4
4
3
1
1
Scientific Name
Common Name
Celtis occidentalis
Crataegus ambigua
Malus 'Spring Snow'
Quercus muehlenbergii
Quercus shummardi
Tilia cordata
Hackberry, Western
Hawthorn, Russian
Crabapple, Spring Snow
Oak, Chinkapin
Oak, Shummard Oak
Linden, Littleleaf
Scientific Name
Common Name
Oryzopsis (Achnatherum) hymenoides
Amelanchier alnifolia
Aronia arbutifolia
Artemisia filifolia
Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'
Chasmanthium latifolium
Cornus stolonifera 'Baileyi'
Cornus stolonifera 'Isanti'
Euonymus fortunei 'Emerald `n Gold'
Juniperus sabina 'Broadmoor'
Juniperus sabina 'Buffalo'
Miscanthus sinensis 'Gracillimus'
Physocarpus opulifolius Diablo
Prunus besseyi Pawnee Buttes
Prunus x cistena
Rhus aromatica 'Gro-Low'
Ribes alpinum
Rosa x rugosa 'Nearly Wild'
Schizachyrium scoparium
Symphoricarpos x chenaulti 'Hancock'
Viburnum dentatum 'Blue Muffin'
Grass, Indian Rice
Serviceberry, Saskatoon
Chokeberry, Autumn Magic
Sagebrush, Sand
Grass, Feather Reed
Grass, Northern Sea Oats
Dogwood, Bailey Redtwig
Dogwood, Isanti
Euonymus, Emerald `n Gold
Juniper, Broadmoor
Juniper, Buffalo
Grass, Maiden
Ninebark, Purple Leaf
Cherry, Creeping Western Sand
Plum, Purple Leaf
Sumac, Dwarf Fragrant
Currant, Alpine
Rose, Nearly Wild
Grass, Littlee Bluestem
Coralberry, Hancock
Viburnum, Blue Muffin Arrowwood
Scientific Name
Common Name
Achillea millefolium 'Terra Cotta'
Achillea millefolium 'Red Beauty'
Achillea millefolium
Achillea 'Coronation Gold'
Vinca minor 'Bowles Variety'
Yarrow, Terra Cotta
Yarrow, Red
Yarrow, Common White
Yarrow, Golden Yellow
Periwinkle, Bowles
Mature Height ft
Min
Max
50
60
15
25
20
25
35
50
40
50
30
40
Mature Sprd ft
Min
Max
40
50
15
20
20
25
35
50
30
40
30
40
Water Req
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Exposure
Sun
Sun
Sun
Sun
Sun
Sun
Cont
B&B
B&B
B&B
B&B
B&B
B&B
Size
2" Cal
1.5" Cal
1.5" Cal
2" Cal
2" Cal
2" Cal
Mature Height ft
Min
Max
1.25
1.50
6
12
6
8
1
5
4
5
2
3
6
10
4
5
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
4
5
6
8
1.25
1.50
6
8
2
3
3
6
4
6
3
4
2
3
3
5
Mature Sprd ft
Min
Max
1.00
1.50
6
12
4
6
2
3
1.50
2.00
1.50
2.00
6
10
4
6
3
4
6
8
6
8
4
5
6
8
4
6
4
6
6
8
3
6
4
6
2.00
2.50
3
6
3
4
Water Req
Low
Low
Medium
Very Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Exposure
Filtered Sun
Sun to Filtered Shade
Adaptable
Sun
Sun to Filtered Shade
Sun to Shade
Adaptable
Adaptable
Filtered Shade to Shade
Sun to Filtered Shade
Sun to Filtered Shade
Sun
Sun
Sun
Adaptable
Sun
Sun to Filtered Shade
Sun
Sun
Sun to Filtered Shade
Adaptable
Cont
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Container Shrubs
Size
1 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
1 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
1 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
1 Gal
5 Gal
5 Gal
Mature Height ft
Min
Max
1.50
2.00
1.50
2.00
1
2
3.00
3.50
0.33
0.50
Mature Sprd ft
Min
Max
1.50
2.00
2
3
2
3
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.50
Water Req
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Exposure
Sun
Sun
Sun
Sun
Adaptable
Cont
Flat @ 18"
Flat @ 18"
Flat @ 18"
Flat @ 18"
Flat @ 12"
Size
F32(2 1/4"
F32(2 1/4"
F32(2 1/4"
F32(2 1/4"
F32(2 1/4"
SHRUBS
Code
AH
AA
AM
AF
CA
CL
CS
CI
EE
JB
JS
MG
PO
PB
PC
RA
RA2
RW
SS
SC
VD
Qty
138
7
2
48
28
81
10
16
9
25
15
88
4
66
14
15
15
15
48
40
23
SHRUB AREAS
Code
AM2
AM2
AM2
AM2
VC
Qty
1
1
2
1
43
oc
oc
oc
oc
oc
Pots)
Pots)
Pots)
Pots)
Pots)
Appendix C: CSU Campus Credits and Polices Through this process it has become clear that there are some barriers that exist for credits that affect each building differently. Conversely, there are some credits and prerequisites that, if addressed by the university, could apply for all buildings in the Colorado State University LEED program. They are as follows: Campus‐wide credits and policies MRp1: Sustainable Purchasing Policy MRp2: Solid Waste Management Policy IEQp2: Environmental Tobacco Smoke (EST) Control IEQp3: Green Cleaning Policy SSc2: Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan SSc3 Integrated Pest Management, Erosion Control and Landscape Management Plan SSc5: Site Development, Protect or Restore Open Habitat EAc6: Emissions Reductions Reporting MRc1: Sustainable Purchasing, Ongoing Consumables MRc2: Sustainable Purchasing, Durable Goods MRc3: Sustainable Purchasing, Facility Alterations and Additions MRc4: Sustainable Purchasing, Reduced Mercury in Lamps MRc7: Solid Waste Management, Ongoing Consumables MRc8: Solid Waste Management, Durable Goods MRc9: Solid Waste Management, Facility Alterations and Additions IEQc1.5: IAQ Best Management Practices, Facility Alterations and Additions IEQc3.1: Green Cleaning, High Performance Cleaning Program IEQc3.2: Green Cleaning, Custodial Effectiveness Assessment IEQc3.3: Green Cleaning, Purchase of Sustainable Cleaning Products and Materials IEQc3.4: Green Cleaning, Sustainable Cleaning Equipment IEQc3.6 Green Cleaning, Indoor Integrated Pest Management Responsible Party Department or University Department or University University Department or University Facilities Management Contracted Pest Manager/ Facilities Management CSU Real Estate Office Facilities Management Department or University Department or University Department or University Department or University Department or University Department or University Department or University Facilities Management and HDS Facilities Management and HDS Facilities Management and HDS Department or University Department or University Department or University/ Contracted Pest Manager 65 Appendix D: Occupant Survey Preliminary Colorado State University Existing Building Occupant Survey Please take 5‐7 minutes to help the Institute for the Built Environment and CSU Facilities Department gather information pertaining to occupant comfort as it relates to your building environment. Answers to these survey questions will help indicate the performance of the building’s heating, ventilation, air conditioning, acoustical, lighting, and cleaning systems, while also providing direction for improving systems and facilitating a comfortable environment for building occupants. This survey also seeks to gain your input to assess the current commuting habits and to evaluate awareness concerning various forms of alternative transportation. Thank you for your participation. * Required *
Which of the following buildings do you occupy? TILT NESB Yates Clark A‐Wing Aspen Hall *
How many years have you occupied this building? Less than 1 year 1‐2 years 3‐5 years More than 5 years *
In which direction does your office/ residence room face? (check any that apply) North East South West Southeast Northeast Southwest Northwest 66 Which of the following do you use to adjust or control your office/ residence room environment? *
(Check any that apply) Window blinds or shades Room air‐conditioning unit Ceiling fan Windows Thermostat Portable fan Adjustable air vents Portable heater Other If other, please describe *
What are the current seasonal conditions outside Winter Summer Spring Fall *
What is the approximate temperature outside today (Degrees Fahrenheit) *
How would you describe the weather outside today? Clear skies/ sunny Partly Cloudy Snowy Overcast Rainy Windy *
What is your current thermal comfort? Hot Warm Slightly Warm Neutral 67 Slightly Cool Cool Cold *
How satisfied are you with the temperature in your office/ residence room today? Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied *
If you are dissatisfied, how would you best describe the source of your discomfort? (check all that apply?) Air movement to high Air movement to low Incoming sun Drafts from windows Drafts from vents Hot/cold surrounding surfaces (floor, ceiling, walls, or windows) Heating/ cooling system does not respond quickly enough to the thermostat *
Are any of the following currently operating in your office/ residence room? computers/lap tops copier/ fax machine lighting dishwasher tv other If other, Please describe 68 *
In the winter months, how satisfied are you with the temperature in your office/ residence room? Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied If you are dissatisfied, would you describe the temperature as too hot or too cold? Too hot Too cold *
If you are dissatisfied how would you best describe the source of your discomfort? (check all that apply) Air movement too high Air movement too low Incoming sun Drafts from windows Drafts from vents Hot/cold surrounding surfaces (floor, ceiling, walls, or windows) Heating/cooling system does not respond quickly enough to the thermostat Uneven temperature (some parts always hot while others always cold) Other If other, please describe *
How satisfied are you with the noise level in your workspace? Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 69 How satisfied are you with the sound privacy in your workspace (ability to have conversations without neighbors *
overhearing and vice versa Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Overall, does the acoustical quality in your work space enhance or interfere with your ability to function well in your *
space? Greatly enhances Mostly enhances Somewhat enhances Neither enhances nor interferes Somewhat interferes Mostly interferes Greatly interferes *
If you are dissatisfied, how would you best describe the source of your discomfort? (Check all that apply) Other people's conversations Noises from others' work activities White noises Noise from outside of the building Structural building noises (e.g. creaking) Technological gadget noises (e.g. beeping, humming, high frequency sounds Other If other, please describe *
How satisfied are you with the amount of light provided in your workspace? Very satisfied Mostly satisfied 70 Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied *
How satisfied are you with the visual comfort of the lighting (e.g. glare, reflections, contrast)? Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied *
Which of the following controls do you have over the lighting in your workspace? Light Switch Light Dimmer Window Blinds and Shades Desk (task) lighting None of the above *
How satisfied are you with the air quality in your workspace (i.e. dusty, stuffy/stale air, cleanliness, odors, etc) Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 71 Overall, does the air quality in your workspace enhance or interfere with your ability to get things accomplished in your *
space? Greatly enhances Mostly enhances Somewhat enhances Neither enhances nor interferes Somewhat interferes Mostly interferes Greatly interferes If you are dissatisfied, how would you best describe the source of your discomfort? (check all that apply) Dusty air Stuffy or stale air Scents from air fresheners Food or body odors, including perfumes Other If other, please describe *
How satisfied are you with general building cleanliness Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied *
How satisfied are you with the cleaning service provided for your work/ living space Very satisfied Mostly satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied 72 Mostly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Does the cleanliness and maintenance of this building enhance or interfere with your ability to get things accomplished *
in your space? Greatly enhances Mostly enhances Neither enhances nor interferes Somewhat interferes Mostly interferes Greatly interferes If you are dissatisfied, how would you best describe the source of your discomfort? ( check all that apply) Floors are dirty Walls and windows are dirty Office surfaces are dusty/dirty Waste baskets are not emptied often enough Common utility areas are unkempt (e.g. copy/print areas cluttered with paper/waste) Bathrooms are messy/dirty Entrances, lobby and other communal spaces are unkempt Other If other, please describe *
I live in the following zip code *
My average one‐way commute distance, in miles, to my place of work Aspen residents, you may not commute at all, please enter 0 73 Please indicate the method of transportation you use to get to get to work each day during the week. (If you use more *
than one mode of transportation, please indicate the mode used for the longest distance during your commute) Mon Drive Alone Carpool Public Transit/ Bus Vanpool Bicycle Walk Telecommute Sick/Vacation Day I live in this building Tues Wed Thurs
Fri
If you drive to work, please indicate the make, model and year of your vehicle below Please indicate whether your vehicle uses any of the following alternative fuels Electricity Hydrogen Propane or compressed natural gas Liquid natural gas Methanol Ethanol Do you usually travel home using the same mode of transportation used to get to work? If "no," please briefly explain your mode of transportation used to return home from work below: Does your typical commuting pattern change significantly depending on the time of year? If so, please explain below (i.e. bike in the summer instead of bus) 74 *
When do you turn your computer completely off? (Not just into sleep mode) Whenever the computer is not in use Before I go home A few times per week Never *
On which floor is your office/residence room located? first floor second floor third floor fourth floor fifth floor Online survey found at: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dE5mUFp1YUxDZ0x4RGdSUU8tS1NOZVE
6MQ 75 Appendix D: Schedule of Performance Periods
Credit Number
Considerations Before Commencement of Performance Period
SSc2
SSc4
n/a
Develop program or survey.
Calculate req'd area. Find area, initiate/complete SSc5
restoration.
Develop inventory of surface and runoff, develop SSc6
management plan
Documentation of building, fixture upgrades, and/or WEc2
fixture inventory
All energy upgrades should take place before the start EAp2 of the performance period.
All energy upgrades should take place before the start EAc1 of the performance period.
Determine if commisssioning or an ASHRAE Level II EAc2.1
audit is necessary.
EAc2.2 n/a
Complete first half of commissioning cycle prior to EAc2.3
LEED application date.
Assess current level of submetering, record buildings' EAc3.2 significant energy end‐uses, compile data.
EAc4
EAc5
EAc6
MRp1
MRp2
MRc1
MRc2
MRc3
MRc4
Determine appropriate off‐site renewable energy supplier. Calculate energy use and solicit proposals for REC's.
Implement upgrades to on‐site or DES equipment to
Implement upgrades to on‐site or DES equipment to meet requirements.
n/a
Collaborate with vendors to establish policy goals and identify preferred products. Coordinate and approve policy by department.
Collaborate with waste staff to establish goals and best practices. Coordinate and approve policy by department.
Inventory on‐going consumables. Collaborate with purchasers and vendors to create preferred products list. Establish system for tracking.
Inventory durable goods. Collaborate with purchasers and vendors to create preferred products list. Establish system for tracking.
n/a
Inventory existing mercury containing lamps. Write purchasing plan for lamps. Establish system for tracking.
Schedule of Performance Periods
mo. 1
mo. 2
mo. 3
mo. 4
mo. 5
mo. 6
mo. 7
mo. 8
mo. 9
mo. 10
mo. 11
mo. 12
Appendix D: Schedule of Performance Periods
Credit Number
MRc5
MRc6
MRc7
MRc8
MRc9
IEQc1.1
IEQc1.2
IEQc1.3
IEQc2.1
IEQc2.2
IEQc2.3
IEQc3.1
IEQc3.2
IEQc3.3
IEQc3.4
IEQc3.5
Considerations Before Commencement of Performance Period
Schedule of Performance Periods
mo. 1
mo. 2
mo. 3
mo. 4
mo. 5
mo. 6
Inventory standard food purchases. Assess current sustainability performance. Establish system for tracking.
n/a
Establish system for tracking. Communicate program details to pertinent parties. Establish system for tracking. Communicate program details to pertinent parties. Establish system for tracking. Communicate program details to pertinent parties. n/a
n/a
n/a
Develop occupant survey.
Assess existing lighting fixtures, and complete necessary upgrades to meet requirements.
Determine if compliant monitoring is being done, make changes to comply.
Collaborate with applicable parties and formalize green cleaning best practices.
n/a
Evaluate existing purchases, create inventory, collaborate with pruchasing and vendors. Establish system for tracking
system for tracking
Evaluate existing purchases, create inventory, collaborate with pruchasing and vendors. Establish system for tracking.
Implement permanent entryway systems at entryways. Develop maintenance plan for upkeep.
KEY:
Non critical performance period
Critical performance period
Pre‐performance period timeframe
Policy pre performance period: devlopment timeframe
Policy pre‐performance period: approval timeframe
Policy pre‐performance period: implementation timeframe
mo. 7
mo. 8
mo. 9
mo. 10
mo. 11
mo. 12
Appendix F: Draft Polices for Use by Departments at CSU Colorado State University Facilities Management Department Last Revised 08/2010 Drafts Only for Discussion Sustainable Purchasing Policy for Buildings in the LEED Green Building Certification Program Policy Statement Colorado State University will adhere to the sustainable purchasing policy required under the LEED green building certification program for specified campus buildings. This policy reflects CSU’s ongoing commitment to a sustainable built environment for all within a generation. The built environment has a profound impact on our natural environment, economy, health, and productivity. Breakthroughs in science, technology and operations are now available for those who want to build, maintain, and operate “green” and maximize both economic and environmental performance. The goal of this policy is to reduce the environmental impacts of material acquired for use in the operations, maintenance and upgrade of buildings. Background & Application of Policy Briefly describes relevant background information and specific information regarding to whom the policy applies. Colorado State University is a signatory of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. This policy is just another step in the natural evolution of Colorado State’s longstanding commitment to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, promote education, research, and outreach in support of environmental sustainability and long‐term climate neutrality. As stated in the policy statement above, CSU will adhere to the sustainable purchasing standards required under the LEED building certification program for specified campus buildings. The intent of this policy is to encourage the purchase and use of materials, products, and services that incorporate environmental, social, community, and performance goals. Sustainable purchasing must be encouraged or required, if feasible, for ongoing consumables, including paper, toner cartridges, binders, batteries, and desk accessories. Food and beverage purchases are exempt. Purchasing activity for an entire building and associated grounds must be included and documented. Specific prerequisites must be met to become certified under the LEED Green Building Rating System. The Sustainable Purchasing Policy is one of the required prerequisites. This policy will 78 only apply to those University buildings declared to be part of the University Green Building Operations & Maintenance Program (LEED). For a complete list of buildings declared to be part of the Green Building and Operations & Maintenance Program contact Facilities Management or their web site http://www.facilities.colostate.edu/. Procedures, Strategies, and Responsibilities ___________ must be responsible for the following; • Adopting and enforcing the environmentally preferable purchasing policy; • Working with vendors to identify environmentally preferable products that meet the needs of the building; • Evaluating items that are purchased for the building, identifying opportunities for more environmentally friendly alternatives, and establishing a policy to purchase these alternatives, where feasible. Key Stakeholders include: • Facility Manager or Director : • Purchasing Manager: • Suppliers: Definitions An environmentally preferable product is a product that has a reduced negative effect or increased positive effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose. This comparison may take into consideration raw materials acquisition, production, fabrication, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation, maintenance and disposal of the product. This term includes, but is not limited to, recycled and reusable products. Life‐cycle analysis is an accounting methodology used to evaluate the economic performance of a product or system over its useful life. It considers operating costs, maintenance expenses, and other economic factors. Rapidly Renewable Materials are planted and harvested in a less than 10‐year cycle. These include materials such as bamboo, wool, cotton, insulation, agrifiber, linoleum, wheat board, strawboard, and cork. Source reduction reduces the amount of unnecessary material brought into a building. Examples include purchasing products with less packaging. 79 Sustainable purchasing policy gives preference to products that have little to no negative impact on the environment and society throughout their life cycle and to the companies that supply them. References and Resources ENERGY STAR Business Improvement, Purchasing and Procurement http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=bulk_purchasing.bus_purchasing Greater Vancouver Regional District, Sustainable Purchasing Guide http://www.noharm.org/details.cfm?ID=1337&type=document Sustainability Purchasing Ne2rk http://www.buysmartbc.com U.S. EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines http://www.epa.gov/cpg U.S. EPA, Mercury http://www.epa.gov/mercury U.S. EPA Environmentally Preferable Purchasing http://www.epa.gov/epp USGBC’s LEED Registered Project Tools http://www.usgbc.org/projecttools Time Period This policy will take effect on (date). 80 Solid Waste Management Policy for Buildings in the LEED Green Building Certification Program Policy Statement It is the Policy of Colorado State University Facilities Management to have in place a solid waste management policy for all buildings declared by the University to be part of the Green Building Operations & Maintenance program (LEED). The Solid Waste Policy must adhere to the LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance policy manual. At a minimum, it must cover the waste streams that are within the building and site management’s control. The goal of the policy is to reduce the amount of waste and toxins hauled to and disposed of in landfills or incineration facilities. This policy encompasses all ongoing consumables, durable goods, and materials used during facility alterations and additions. Background & Application of Policy Colorado State University is a signatory of the American College & University President’s Climate Commitment. Colorado State has demonstrated a strong commitment to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and promote education, research and outreach in support of environmental sustainability and long‐term climate neutrality. As part of that ongoing commitment, CSU is seeking LEED Building Certification for specific buildings on campus. To achieve certification, specific prerequisites must be met under the LEED Green Building Rating System. The Solid Waste Management Policy is one of the required prerequisites. This policy will only apply to those University buildings declared to be part of the University Green Building operations & Maintenance Program (LEED). For a complete list of buildings declared to be part of the Green Building and Operations & Maintenance Program, contact Facilities Management or their web site http://www.facilities.colostate.edu/. Environmental Issues
Building operations and maintenance generate significant qualities of waste. Source reduction, reuse, recycling, and other waste diversion strategies reduce the demand for new materials and the related harvesting or extraction of natural resources for manufacturing. Additionally, the disposal of solid waste by incineration or at landfills produces greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, the anaerobic decomposition of waste in landfills produce methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. A comprehensive solid waste management policy helps the environmental burden associated with waste disposal. Economic Issues
New materials purchased for building operations and maintenance increase the amount of waste generated in a facility. This raises the cost of building operations and maintenance in 2 ways: (1) unnecessary materials, such as packaging, add to the cost of products purchased; and 81 (2) landfill or incineration costs increase concurrently. Therefore, source reduction is the most economical way to reduce waste. When source reduction is not possible, reuse and recycling can also save money. All 3 strategies can reduce building operating costs associated with unnecessary materials use and waste. Highly effective waste stream management programs may generate profits for the organization by reducing waste disposal expenditures. Implementation Develop and implement a solid waste management policy for the building and site that diverts waste from incinerators and landfills. Exemptions University buildings not declared to be part of the Green Building Operations & Maintenance Program (LEED) are exempted from this policy. Policy Scope/Requirements Have in place a solid waste policy for the building and site addressing the requirements of the waste management credits listed below as well as recycling of all mercury‐containing lamps. This policy must adhere to LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance policy model. At a minimum, the policy must cover the waste streams that are within the building and site management’s control. MR Credit 7: Solid Waste Management –Ongoing Consumables MR Credit 8: Solid Waste Management –Durable Goods MR Credit 9: Solid Waste Management – Facility Alterations and Additions This prerequisite requires only policies, not ongoing actual sustainable performance. Performance Metric Describe how performance will be measured or evaluated The calculation will be based on the (weight/volume of applicable goods and materials. Durable goods can be tracked by replacement value. Documentation of all waste must be kept. Policy Goals The goals of the solid waste management policy include the following reductions: •
Reducing the overall amount of waste generated for: o Ongoing consumables by ______% o Durable goods by _______% 82 o
o
o
o
o
Facility alterations/additions by _____% Batteries by ______% Mercury‐containing light bulbs by ______% Reuse of recycling of materials, when feasible Recovery of energy from solid waste that cannot be reused or recycled Definitions Durable goods have a useful life of 2 years or more and are replaced infrequently or may require capital program outlays. Examples include furniture, office equipment, appliances, external power adapters, televisions, and audiovisual equipment. Incinerator is a furnace or container for burning waste materials. Landfills are waste disposal sites for solid waste from human activities. Ongoing consumables have a low cost per unit and are regularly used and replaced in the course of business. Examples include paper, toner cartridges, binders, batteries, and desk accessories. Recycling is the collection, reprocessing, marketing, and use of materials that were diverted or recovered from the solid waste stream. Source reduction reduces the amount of unnecessary material brought into a building. Examples include purchasing products with less packaging. Waste comprises all material that flows from the building to final disposal. Examples include paper, grass trimming, food scraps, and plastics. In LEED, waste refers to all material that is capable of being diverted from the building’s waste stream through waste reduction. Waste disposal eliminates waste by means of burial in a landfill, combustion in an incinerator, dumping at sea, or any other way that is not recycling or reuse. Waste diversion is a management activity that disposes of waste other than through incineration or the use of landfills. Examples include reuse and recycling. Waste reduction includes both source reduction and waste diversion through reuse or recycling. References/Resources LampRecycle.org http://www.lampreccle.org 83 U.S. EPA, Mercury‐Containing Lamp Recycling http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/univwast/lamps/index.htm U.S. EPA, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:2006 Facts and Figures http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/index.htm U.S. EPA Waste Wise Program http://www.epa.gov/wastewise/aboutindex.htm Waste at Work: Prevention Strategies for the Bottom Line http://www.information.org/waste2rk.php USGBC’s LEED Registered Project Tools http://www.usgbc.org/projecttools Procedures and Responsibilities (to be completed...provide list duties/procedures and who or whom will be responsible for) Timeline and Team Policy drafting is typically a collaborative effort that engages input from building owners, operators, procurement officials, and product vendors. The facility manager is often the head of the team and is in general responsible for implementation. The solid waste management policy must be adopted before the beginning of the performance period. This policy will take effect beginning _____________ (date). 84 Indoor Air Quality Policy for Buildings in the LEED Green Building Certification Program Policy Statement States the requirement or provision which this policy is placing on/extending to the university community, and why, but does not describe how‐to procedures. Generally one paragraph. Colorado State University will adhere to the indoor Air Quality performance standards required under the LEED green building certification program for specified campus buildings. This policy reflects CSU’s ongoing commitment to a sustainable built environment within a generation. The built environment has a profound impact on our natural environment, economy, health, and productivity. Developments in building science, technology, and operations are now available to designers, builders, operators, and owners who want to build green and maximize both economic and environmental performance. Background & Application of Policy Briefly describes relevant background information and specific information regarding to whom the policy applies. Colorado State University is a signatory of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. This policy is just another step in the natural evolution of Colorado State’s longstanding commitment to minimize green house gas emissions and to promote education, research and outreach in support of environmental sustainability and long‐term climate neutrality. As stated in the policy statement above, CSU will adhere to the indoor air quality performance standards required under the LEED building certification program for specified campus buildings. CSU is aware that strategies to improve indoor environment quality have the potential to improve the health of building occupants, reduce liability for building owners, and increase the buildings value. In addition, productivity also improves with improved indoor environmental quality. Under LEED for Existing Buildings: O&M Indoor Environmental quality (IEQ) prerequisites and credits promote the following 6 measures: •
•
•
•
•
•
Improve Ventilation Manage Air Contaminations Implement Green Cleaning Specify Less Harmful Materials Allow Occupants to Control Desired Settings Provide Daylighting and Views 85 All of these issues have the potential to enhance the indoor environment and optimize interior spaces for building occupants. Specific prerequisites must be met to become certified under the LEED Green Building Rating System. The Minimum Indoor Air Quality Policy is one of the required prerequisites. Once again this policy would only apply to University buildings declared to be part of the University Green Building Operations & Maintenance Program (LEED). For a complete list of buildings declared to be part of the Green Building and Operations & Maintenance Program please contact the University Facilities Department or go to the Facilities Management web site http://www.facilities.colostate.edu/. Exemptions University buildings not declared to be part of the Green Building Operations & Maintenance Program are exempted from this policy. Definitions Define terms that have specialized meaning in the policy. Air‐conditioning is the process of treating air to meet the requirements of a conditioned space by controlling its temperature, humidity, cleanliness, and distribution. (ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1‐
2007) ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007The standard outlines a ventilation rate procedure and the IAQ procedure for compliance. The standard is from the American National Standard Institute. Http://www.ashrae.org Breathing zone is the region within an occupied space between 3 and 72 inches above the floor and no more than 2 feet from walls or fixed air‐conditioning equipment. (AHSRAE 62.1‐2007) Contaminants are unwanted airborne elements that may reduce acceptable indoor air quality. (ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1‐2007) Indoor air quality (IAQ) is the nature of air inside a space that affects the health and well‐being of building occupants. It is considered acceptable when there are no known contaminants at harmful concentrations and a substantial majority (80% or more) of the people exposed do not express dissatisfaction. (ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1‐2007) Mechanical ventilation or active ventilation, is provided by mechanically powered equipment, such as motor‐driven fans and blowers, but not by devices such as wind‐driven turbine ventilators and mechanically operated windows. (ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1‐2004) Mixed‐mode ventilation combines mechanical and natural ventilation methods. 86 Natural ventilation, or passive ventilation, is provided by thermal, wind, or diffusion effects through doors, windows, or other internal openings in the building; it uses the building layout, fabric, and form to achieve heat transfer and air movement. Off‐gassing is the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from synthetic and natural products. Outdoor air is the ambient air that enters a building through a ventilation system, either through natural ventilation or by infiltration. (ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1‐2007) Thermal comfort exists when occupants express satisfaction with the thermal environment. Ventilation is the process of supplying air to or removing air from a space for the purpose of controlling air contaminant levels, humidity, or temperature within the space. (ASHRAE 62.1‐
2007) Policy Scope/Requirements Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance is laid out in the 2009 Edition LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations & Maintenance. IEQ is one of the prerequisites for LEED green building certification. Requirements Case 1: Projects Able to Meet ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007 Modify or maintain each outside air intake, supply air fan and/or ventilation distribution system to supply at least the outdoor air ventilation rate required by ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007 Ventilation rate Procedure (with errata but without addenda*) under all normal operating conditions. Case 2: Projects Unable to Meet ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007 If meeting ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007 ventilation rates (with errata but without addenda*) is unfeasible because of the physical constraints of the existing ventilation system, modify or maintain the system to supply at least 10 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of outdoor air per person under all normal operating conditions. Demonstrate through design documentation, measurements or other evidence that the current system cannot provide the flow rates required by ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007 under any operating condition even when functioning properly. Each air‐handling unit in the building must comply with either Case 1 or Case 2. If some air‐
handling units can provide the outside air flow required by ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007 (with errata but without addenda*) and others cannot, those that can must do so. Buildings must 87 provide at least 10 cfm per person of outside air at each air‐handling unit under all normal operation conditions to earn this prerequisite. And show compliance with the applicable requirement above (Case 1 and Case 2) through measurements taken at the system level (i.e., the air‐handling unit). For variable air volume systems, the dampers, fans speeds, etc. must be set during the test to the worst‐case system conditions (minimum outside air flow) expected during normal ventilation operations. Each air‐
handler must be measured: sampling or grouping of air‐handlers is prohibited. Implement and maintain an HVAC system maintenance program to ensure the proper operations and maintenance of HVAC components as they relate to outdoor air introduction and exhaust. Test and maintain the operation of all building exhaust systems, including bathroom, shower, kitchen and parking exhaust systems. Naturally ventilated buildings must comply with ASHRAE Standard 62.1‐2007, paragraph 5.1 (with errata but without addenda*). *Project teams wishing to use ASHRAE approved addenda for the purposes of this prerequisite may do so at their discretion. Addenda must be applied consistently across all LEED credits. Procedures and Responsibilities. List the scope of the work required to fully implement the policy along with the individual(s) that will take responsibility for that specific area. Overall Policy will fall under/be the responsibility of the ___________________ References and Resources American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers
http://www.ashrae.org
Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Managers (EPA Guide) http://www.epa.gov/iaq/largebldgs/baqtoc.html%20 Energy Costs and IAQ Performance http://www.epa.gov/iaq/largebldgs/energy_cost_and_iaq/index.html Environmental Design links: Indoor Air Quality http://www.outreach.missouri.edu/edninfo/airquality.htm. 88 Indoor Air Quality http://www.epa.gov/iaq Indoor Air Quality Association http://www.iaqa.org Mechanical Service Contractors of America http://www.msca.org/ USGBC’s LEED Registered Project Tools http://www.usgbc.org/projecttools Time Period This policy will take effect beginning (date). 89 Administrative Policy Impact Statement This Administrative Policy Impact Statement assists Colorado State University in determining the need for the proposed policy or a revision to an existing policy, whether the risk or value is sufficient to warrant the dedication of resources needed for policy development and management, and whether the purpose and goal of the proposed or revised policy can be accomplished in a more efficient and effective way. Policy Title: Policy Number: Date Submitted: 7‐01‐2010 Smoking Policy Desired Effective Date: 10‐01‐2010 ‰ New X Revision ‰ Deletion Policy Proponent/Owner (Responsible for administering the policy): Amy Parson NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. State the proposed policy or proposed revision to existing policy. This is a proposed revision to the “Smoking Policy.” The Colorado State University Smoking policy states that “smoking is prohibited in all University Buildings and within (20) feet of any entrance, passageway, operable window, or ventilation system. The proposed change would increase the distance from (20) feet to no less than (25) feet. 2. Explain why the proposed policy, policy revision, or policy deletion is desired. (Include any cost savings that will be accomplished). The intent is to prevent or minimize exposure of building occupants, indoor surfaces and systems to environmental tobacco smoke(ETS) The reason for making this change is to bring the University in compliance with the requirements of LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design) The LEED Green Building System for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance is a set of performance standards for certifying the operations and maintenance of existing commercial or institutional buildings and high‐rise residential buildings of all sizes, both public and private. The LEED program promotes high‐
performance, healthful, durable, affordable, and environmentally sound practices in existing buildings. Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Contol is one of the required prerequisites of LEED program. LEED requires a (25) feet area prohibiting smoking from entrance, passageway, operable window, or ventilation system. The Current CSU smoking policy is set at (20) feet. The proposed revision would bring CSU into compliance with LEED Requirement of (25) feet. No cost savings or added costs to implement are anticipated by this policy revision. 3. Can an existing policy be revised to achieve the proposed policy’s purpose? (If yes, reconsider the need to adopt a new policy.) Yes, This would be a revision to the current University Smoking Policy. 4. Is there a law that requires the adoption of the policy? (If yes, identify the law that requires adoption of the policy.) No, there is not a law that requires policy revision. 5. Is there a Board of Governors Policy that requires adoption of the policy? (If yes, identify the Board of Governors Policy that requires adoption of the policy.) Yes, Historic record indicates that the Board of Governors approved the Smoking Policy including the (20) feet requirement effective May 2007 (Consent calendar). 6. If the policy is not required by law or Board of Governors, describe any occurrence(s) or circumstance(s) that prompted the decision to propose the new policy or revision to the existing policy. This is an effort to maintain the Universities commitment to LEED program. 7. Will adoption of the proposed policy or revision to the existing policy require new resources or reassignment of existing resources? No, the policy revision will be implemented through the normal business channels. 8. Identify any resources and the estimated amount/number of the resources (e.g., financial, human, etc.) needed to implement and administer the policy or policy revision, including resources from Colorado State University. Policy revision will be handled through normal business. No additional resources financial or human anticipated. 9. What category of individuals (e.g., students, faculty, staff, etc.) will be most affected by the policy or policy revision? This is a campus wide policy therefore it impacts all individuals and facilities on campus. Enforcement on the policy will remain with Building Proctors who are made aware of violations within their area of responsibility should contact the violator and explain this policy to them. If the individual continues to violate the policy, the Building Proctor should contact the appropriate office. 10. What Vice President areas will be involved in the policy development? Amy Parson 11. What other departments/divisions, if any, will be affected by the policy or policy revision? This is a campus wide policy. The policy is also included in the Faculty council Manual Section H.14. 12. Have those departments/divisions been given an opportunity to provide feedback about the proposed policy or policy revision? A plan to notify departments/divisions of proposed revision is ongoing. ADMINISTRATIVE/MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT 1. What office will be responsible for administering the policy? 2. What office will be responsible for periodic review of the policy? 3. Identify the internal controls that will be implemented to make the policy or revisions effective. (If the policy or policy revision does not include implementation of internal controls, reconsider the need to adopt or revise the policy). 4. What office will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the policy? REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF CABINET APPROVED BY: _______________________________________ DATE OF APPROVAL: ______________________ Green Cleaning Policy Policy Title Green Cleaning Policy / Green Building Operations & Maintenance Policy Statement States the requirement or provision which this policy is placing on/extending to the university community, and why, but does not describe how‐to procedures. Generally one paragraph. It is the Policy of Colorado State University Facilities Management to enact a green cleaning policy for all campus buildings declared by the University to be part of the Green Building Operations & Maintenance program (LEED). The intent of the green cleaning policy is to reduce the exposure of building occupants and maintenance personnel to potentially hazardous chemical, biological, and particulate contaminants which adversely affect air quality, human health, building finishing and systems, and the environment. Background & Application of Policy Briefly describes relevant background information and specific information regarding to whom the policy applies. The intent of a Green Cleaning Policy is to reduce the exposure to potentially hazardous chemical, biological and particulate contaminants which adversely affect air quality, human health, building finishes, building systems and the environment to building occupants and maintenance personnel. Green Building practices can substantially reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts through high‐performance, market‐leading design, construction and operations practices. As an added benefit, green operations and management reduce operating costs, enhance building marketability, increase workers’ productivity, and reduce potential liability resulting from indoor air quality problems. Specific prerequisites must be met to become certified under the LEED Green Building Rating System. The Green Cleaning Policy is one of the required prerequisites. As previously stated, this policy only applies to University buildings declared to be part of the University Green Building operations & Maintenance Program (LEED). For a complete list of buildings declared to be part of the Green Building and Operations & Maintenance Program, please contact Facilities Management or go to the Facilities Management web site http://www.facilities.colostate.edu. 92 Definitions Define terms that have specialized meaning in the policy. Green Cleaning is the use of cleaning products and practices that have less environmental impact than conventional products and practices. Indoor air quality (IAQ) is the nature of air that affects the health and well‐being of building occupants. Recycling is the collection, reprocessing, marketing, and use of materials that were diverted or recovered from the solid waste stream. Standard operating procedures are detailed written instructions documenting a method to achieve uniformity of performance. Sustainable Cleaning Equipment is equipment that will reduce the exposure of building occupants and maintenance personnel to potentially hazardous chemical, biological and particulate contaminants that adversely affect air quality, human health, building finishes, building systems and the environment, from powered cleaning equipment. (see: IEQ Credit 3.4 2009 Edition LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations and Maintenance) Sustainable Cleaning Products and Materials refers to cleaning products, disposable janitorial paper products and trash bags that reduce environmental impact. (See: IEQ Credit 3.3. 2009 Edition LEED Reference Guide for Green Building Operations and Maintenance) Sustainable Purchasing Policy refers to providing a preference to products that have little negative environmental and social impact throughout their life‐cycle, gives preference to companies whose products have little negative environmental and social impact throughout their life‐cycle, and also gives preference to companies whose products have little negative environmental and social impact. Exemptions University buildings not declared to be a part of the University Green Building Operations & Maintenance Program are exempted from this policy. Scope Buildings and sites that fall under the Green Cleaning Policy need to have in place: A process that encourages the purchase and use of Sustainable Cleaning Products A process leading to the purchase and use of Sustainable Cleaning Equipment for the entire building and associated grounds. 93 Standard operating procedures to address how an effective cleaning, hard floor, and carpet maintenance system will be consistently utilized, managed, and audited. Specifically address cleaning to protect vulnerable building occupants. Strategies for promoting and improving hand hygiene, including both hand washing and the use of alcohol‐based waterless hand sanitizers. Specific guidelines for addressing the safe handling and storage of cleaning chemicals used in the building, including a plan for managing hazardous spills or mishandling incidents. Requirements for staffing and training of maintenance personnel appropriate to the needs of the building. Specifically address the training of maintenance personnel in hazards of use, disposal and recycling of cleaning chemicals, dispensing equipment and packaging. Records must be maintained for each person’s specific training dates. Provide for collecting occupant feedback and continuous improvement to evaluate new technologies, procedures and processes. Performance Goals The University will strive to identify and use low environmental impact chemicals in its cleaning policies while reducing exposure of occupants to chemical hazards. The University will also dispose of and/or recycle cleaning materials and chemicals in a sustainable manner. Performance Metric Green cleaning equipment purchases should meet the guidelines in IEQ Credit 3.4. Standards include green Seal GS‐37, 9, 1, and 41, Environmental Choice CCD‐110, 146, 148, 112, 113, 115, 147, 82, 86, and 104, and the U.S. EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. Documentation of all purchases related to the applicable categories must be maintained on an annual basis. Documentation of the type of chemical, volume, and concentration used in all cleaning process must be maintained. Documentation of the frequency of each cleaning process must be maintained. Records and documentation for all guidelines, training, occupant feedback, and other strategies must be maintained. Procedures and Responsibilities List the scope of the work required to fully implement the policy along with the individual (s) that will take responsibility for that specific area. Overall Policy for Green Cleaning will be the responsibility of the Director of Facilities Management. 94 Development and Process for overseeing purchase of sustainable Cleaning products will be the responsibility of _________________________. Purchasing of sustainable equipment will be responsibility of ________________________ Development, maintaining and monitoring standard cleaning operating procedures will be the responsibility of ______________________________. Development and implementation of hand hygiene will be responsibility of ___________________________ Safe handling and storage of cleaning chemicals, including a plan for managing hazardous spills or mishandling incidents will be responsibility of ________________________________________. The staffing and training of maintenance personnel under the policy will be responsibility of ______________________________. Develop and maintaining a process that encourages occupant feedback is the responsibility of _________________________________. The ongoing evaluation striving for continuous improvement, the evaluation of new technologies, procedures and processes is the responsibility of _____________________________________. Time Period This policy will take effect on _______________________(date). 95 Appendix G: LEED for Existing Buildings: O+M Scorecards
LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
CLARK A-WING
Project Checklist
7 12 7
Y
?
4
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
10
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
2 28
Y
Y
Y
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
2
Credit 1
Credit 2.1
2
Credit 2.2
2
1
2
5
Credit 2.3
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
4
1
1
3 to 15
1
1
1
1
1
?
Credit 6
Credit 7
Credit 8
Credit 9
11 1
3
Y
Y
Y
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
1
Credit 1.1
1
1
1 to 2
1 to 5
1 to 5
1 to 2
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
1
1
1
1
1 to 18
2
2
2
1
1 to 2
1 to 6
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
Y
Y
1
Materials and Resources
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Credit 1
1
1
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3
Credit 4
1
Credit 5
Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Solid Waste Management Policy
Sustainable Purchasing—Ongoing Consumables
Sustainable Purchasing—Electric
Sustainable Purchasing—Furniture
Sustainable Purchasing—Facility Alterations and Additions
Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps
Sustainable Purchasing—Food
Credit 3.3
Credit 3.4
Credit 3.5
Credit 3.6
1
2
Credit 1.2
Certified 40 to 49 points
1
1
1
1
1
1
Silver 50 to 59 points
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Credit 2
1
Credit 3
3
1
39 16 55
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
LEED Accredited Professional
Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Total
Gold 60 to 79 points
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 15
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Green Cleaning Policy
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—IAQ Management Program
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Outdoor Air
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Increased Ventilation
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Reduce Particulates in Air Distribution
IAQ Mgmt Plan—IAQ Mgmt for Facility Alterations and Additions
Occupant Comfort—Occupant Survey
Controllability of Systems—Lighting
Occupant Comfort—Thermal Comfort Monitoring
Daylight and Views
Green Cleaning—High Performance Cleaning Program
Green Cleaning—Custodial Effectiveness Assessment
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Products, Materials Purchases
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Equipment
Green Cleaning—Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control
Green Cleaning—Indoor Integrated Pest Management
Regional Priority Credits
Credit 1.1
1
1
1
Management—Waste Stream Audit
Management—Ongoing Consumables
Management—Durable Goods
Management—Facility Alterations and Additions
Innovation in Operations
Credit 1.1
1
1
1
Credit 2.4
Credit 3.2
1
1
Possible Points: 10
Credit 2.3
Credit 3.1
1
8
Credit 1.4
Credit 1.5
1
1
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Indoor Environmental Quality
Prereq 1
Possible Points: 35
Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices
Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance
Existing Building Commissioning—Investigation and Analysis
Existing Building Commissioning—Implementation
Existing Building Commissioning—Ongoing Commissioning
Performance Measurement—Building Automation System
Performance Measurement—System-Level Metering
On-site and Off-site Renewable Energy
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Emissions Reduction Reporting
N
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 14
Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Performance Measurement
Additional Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Efficient Landscaping
Cooling Tower Water Management
Energy
gy and Atmosphere
p
Prereq 1
18
LEED Certified Design and Construction
Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan
Integrated Pest Mgmt, Erosion Control, and Landscape Mgmt Plan
Alternative Commuting Transportation
Site Development—Protect or Restore Open Habitat
Stormwater Quantity Control
Heat Island Reduction—Non-Roof
Heat Island Reduction—Roof
Light Pollution Reduction
Water Efficiency
Prereq 1
2
5
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
Credit 1
Credit 3
Y
5
Y
Credit 2
1
1
1
Materials and Resources, Continued
Possible Points: 26
N
1
1
3 12
1
1
4
Sustainable Sites
2.15.11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 4
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 110
Platinum 80 to 110
LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
YATES HALL
Project Checklist
7 12 7
Y
?
4
Credit 1
Credit 3
Credit 4
Credit 5
1
Credit 6
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
4
10
Y
2 28
Y
Y
Y
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
2
Credit 1
Credit 2.1
2
Credit 2.2
2
1
2
5
Credit 2.3
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
4
1
1
3 to 15
1
1
1
1
1
?
Credit 6
Credit 7
Credit 8
Credit 9
11 1
3
Y
Y
Y
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
1
Credit 1.1
1
1
1 to 2
1 to 5
1 to 5
1 to 2
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
1
1
1
1
1 to 18
2
2
2
1
1 to 2
1 to 6
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
Y
Y
1
Materials and Resources
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Credit 1
1
1
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3
Credit 4
1
Credit 5
Possible Points: 10
Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Solid Waste Management Policy
Sustainable Purchasing—Ongoing Consumables
Sustainable Purchasing—Electric
Sustainable Purchasing—Furniture
Sustainable Purchasing—Facility Alterations and Additions
Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps
Sustainable Purchasing—Food
Certified 40 to 49 points
1
1
1
1
1
1
Silver 50 to 59 points
Credit 2.3
Credit
C dit 2.4
24
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 3.3
Credit 3.4
Credit 3.5
Credit 3.6
1
2
1
1
Credit 1.2
1
1
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Credit 2
1
Management—Waste Stream Audit
Management—Ongoing Consumables
Management—Durable Goods
Management—Facility Alterations and Additions
Credit 3
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
LEED Accredited Professional
Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts
4
Regional Priority Credits
1
1
1
1
Credit 1.1
38 16 56
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Total
Gold 60 to 79 points
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 15
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Green Cleaning Policy
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—IAQ Management Program
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Outdoor Air
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Increased Ventilation
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Reduce Particulates in Air Distribution
IAQ Mgmt Plan—IAQ Mgmt for Facility Alterations and Additions
Occupant Comfort—Occupant Survey
Controllability of Systems—Lighting
Occupant Comfort—Thermal Comfort Monitoring
Daylight
D li ht and
d Views
Vi
Green Cleaning—High Performance Cleaning Program
Green Cleaning—Custodial Effectiveness Assessment
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Products, Materials Purchases
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Equipment
Green Cleaning—Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control
Green Cleaning—Indoor Integrated Pest Management
Innovation in Operations
Credit 1.1
1
8
Credit 1.4
Credit 1.5
1
1
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Indoor Environmental Quality
Prereq 1
Possible Points: 35
Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices
Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance
Existing Building Commissioning—Investigation and Analysis
Existing Building Commissioning—Implementation
Existing Building Commissioning—Ongoing Commissioning
Performance Measurement—Building Automation System
Performance Measurement—System-Level Metering
On-site and Off-site Renewable Energy
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Emissions Reduction Reporting
N
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 14
Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Performance Measurement
Additional Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Efficient Landscaping
Cooling Tower Water Management
Energy and Atmosphere
Prereq 1
18
LEED Certified Design and Construction
Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan
Integrated Pest Mgmt, Erosion Control, and Landscape Mgmt Plan
Alternative Commuting Transportation
Site Development—Protect or Restore Open Habitat
Stormwater Quantity Control
Heat Island Reduction—Non-Roof
Heat Island Reduction—Roof
Light Pollution Reduction
Water Efficiency
Prereq 1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Y
Credit 2
1
1
1
Materials and Resources, Continued
Possible Points: 26
N
1
1
3 12
1
5
Sustainable Sites
2.15.11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 4
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 110
Platinum 80 to 110
LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
NESB
Project Checklist
7 12 7
Y
?
4
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
11
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
1
2 24
Y
Y
Y
5
2
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Credit 1
Credit 2.1
2
Credit 2.2
2
1
2
5
1
1
Credit 2.3
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
4
1
1
3 to 15
1
1
1
1
1
?
N
1
1
1
1
Credit 6
Credit 7
Credit 8
Credit 9
12 1
2
Y
Y
Y
Possible Points: 14
Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Performance Measurement
Additional Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Efficient Landscaping
Cooling Tower Water Management
Energy and Atmosphere
Prereq 1
13
LEED Certified Design and Construction
Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan
Integrated Pest Mgmt, Erosion Control, and Landscape Mgmt Plan
Alternative Commuting Transportation
Site Development—Protect or Restore Open Habitat
Stormwater Quantity Control
Heat Island Reduction—Non-Roof
Heat Island Reduction—Roof
Light Pollution Reduction
Water Efficiency
Prereq 1
2
3
5
1
2
1
Credit 1
Credit 3
Y
9
Y
Credit 2
1
1
1
Materials and Resources, Continued
Possible Points: 26
N
1
1
3 12
1
1
3
Sustainable Sites
2.15.11
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Credit 1.1
1
1
1 to 2
1 to 5
1 to 5
1 to 2
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 35
Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices
Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance
Existing Building Commissioning—Investigation and Analysis
Existing Building Commissioning—Implementation
Existing Building Commissioning—Ongoing Commissioning
Performance Measurement—Building Automation System
Performance Measurement—System-Level Metering
On-site and Off-site Renewable Energy
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Emissions Reduction Reporting
1 to 18
2
2
2
1
1 to 2
1 to 6
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
Y
Y
1
Materials and Resources
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 3.3
Credit 3.4
Credit 3.5
Credit 3.6
1
2
1
1
Credit 1.2
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Credit 1
1
1
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3
Credit 4
1
Credit 5
Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Solid Waste Management Policy
Sustainable Purchasing—Ongoing Consumables
Sustainable Purchasing—Electric
Sustainable Purchasing—Furniture
Sustainable Purchasing—Facility Alterations and Additions
Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps
Sustainable Purchasing—Food
Certified 40 to 49 points
1
1
1
1
1
1
Silver 50 to 59 points
Credit 1.4
Credit 2
1
1
Credit 1.3
Credit 3
3
1
Regional Priority Credits
Credit 1.1
1
1
1
43 16 51
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
LEED Accredited Professional
Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Total
Gold 60 to 79 points
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 15
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Green Cleaning Policy
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—IAQ Management Program
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Outdoor Air
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Increased Ventilation
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Reduce Particulates in Air Distribution
IAQ Mgmt Plan—IAQ Mgmt for Facility Alterations and Additions
Occupant Comfort—Occupant Survey
Controllability of Systems—Lighting
Occupant Comfort—Thermal Comfort Monitoring
Daylight
D li ht and
d Views
Vi
Green Cleaning—High Performance Cleaning Program
Green Cleaning—Custodial Effectiveness Assessment
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Products, Materials Purchases
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Equipment
Green Cleaning—Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control
Green Cleaning—Indoor Integrated Pest Management
Innovation in Operations
Credit 1.1
1
1
Possible Points: 10
Credit 2.3
Credit
C dit 2.4
24
1
8
Credit 1.4
Credit 1.5
1
Management—Waste Stream Audit
Management—Ongoing Consumables
Management—Durable Goods
Management—Facility Alterations and Additions
Indoor Environmental Quality
Prereq 1
1
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 4
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 110
Platinum 80 to 110
LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
TILT
Project Checklist
7 12 7
Y
?
4
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
10
Credit 7.1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
2 28
Y
Y
Y
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
2
Credit 1
Credit 2.1
2
Credit 2.2
2
1
2
5
T
Credit 2.3
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
4
1
1
3 to 15
1
1
1
1
1
?
N
1
1
1
1
Credit 6
Credit 7
Credit 8
Credit 9
12 1
2
Y
Y
Y
Possible Points: 14
Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Performance Measurement
Additional Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Efficient Landscaping
Cooling Tower Water Management
Energy and Atmosphere
Prereq 1
18
LEED Certified Design and Construction
Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan
Integrated Pest Mgmt, Erosion Control, and Landscape Mgmt Plan
Alternative Commuting Transportation
Site Development—Protect or Restore Open Habitat
Stormwater Quantity Control
Heat Island Reduction—Non-Roof
Heat Island Reduction—Roof
Light Pollution Reduction
Water Efficiency
Prereq 1
2
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Credit 1
Credit 3
Y
5
Y
Credit 2
1
1
1
Materials and Resources, Continued
Possible Points: 26
N
1
1
3 12
1
1
4
Sustainable Sites
2.15.11
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Credit 1.1
1
1
1 to 2
1 to 5
1 to 5
1 to 2
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 35
Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices
Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance
Existing Building Commissioning—Investigation and Analysis
Existing Building Commissioning—Implementation
Existing Building Commissioning—Ongoing Commissioning
Performance Measurement—Building Automation System
Performance Measurement—System-Level Metering
On-site and Off-site Renewable Energy
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Emissions Reduction Reporting
1 to 18
2
2
2
1
1 to 2
1 to 6
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
Y
Y
1
Materials and Resources
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 3.3
Credit 3.4
Credit 3.5
Credit 3.6
1
2
1
1
Credit 1.2
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Credit 1
1
1
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3
Credit 4
1
Credit 5
Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Solid Waste Management Policy
Sustainable Purchasing—Ongoing Consumables
Sustainable Purchasing—Electric
Sustainable Purchasing—Furniture
Sustainable Purchasing—Facility Alterations and Additions
Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps
Sustainable Purchasing—Food
Certified 40 to 49 points
1
1
1
1
1
1
Silver 50 to 59 points
Credit 1.4
Credit 2
1
1
Credit 1.3
Credit 3
3
1
Regional Priority Credits
Credit 1.1
1
1
1
40 16 54
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
LEED Accredited Professional
Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Total
Gold 60 to 79 points
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 15
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Green Cleaning Policy
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—IAQ Management Program
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Outdoor Air
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Increased Ventilation
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Reduce Particulates in Air Distribution
IAQ Mgmt Plan—IAQ Mgmt for Facility Alterations and Additions
Occupant Comfort—Occupant Survey
Controllability of Systems—Lighting
Occupant Comfort—Thermal Comfort Monitoring
Daylight
D li ht and
d Views
Vi
Green Cleaning—High Performance Cleaning Program
Green Cleaning—Custodial Effectiveness Assessment
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Products, Materials Purchases
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Equipment
Green Cleaning—Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control
Green Cleaning—Indoor Integrated Pest Management
Innovation in Operations
Credit 1.1
1
1
Possible Points: 10
Credit 2.3
Credit
C dit 2.4
24
1
8
Credit 1.4
Credit 1.5
1
Management—Waste Stream Audit
Management—Ongoing Consumables
Management—Durable Goods
Management—Facility Alterations and Additions
Indoor Environmental Quality
Prereq 1
1
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 4
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 110
Platinum 80 to 110
LEED 2009 for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance
ASPEN HALL
Project Checklist
13 12 1
Y
?
Y
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
Credit 7.1
1
1
Credit 7.2
Credit 8
10
4
Y
1
5
3
1
Credit 1
Credit 2
2
1
25 2
Y
Y
Y
17
2
8
Credit 3
Credit 4
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Credit 1
Credit 2.1
2
Credit 2.2
2
1
2
2
Credit 2.3
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
4
1
1
3 to 15
1
1
1
1
1
?
N
1
1
1
1
Credit 6
Credit 7
Credit 8
Credit 9
12 1
2
Y
Y
Y
Possible Points: 14
Minimum Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Performance Measurement
Additional Indoor Plumbing Fixture and Fitting Efficiency
Water Efficient Landscaping
Cooling Tower Water Management
Energy and Atmosphere
Prereq 1
1
LEED Certified Design and Construction
Building Exterior and Hardscape Management Plan
Integrated Pest Mgmt, Erosion Control, and Landscape Mgmt Plan
Alternative Commuting Transportation
Site Development—Protect or Restore Open Habitat
Stormwater Quantity Control
Heat Island Reduction—Non-Roof
Heat Island Reduction—Roof
Light Pollution Reduction
Water Efficiency
Prereq 1
1
Materials and Resources, Continued
Possible Points: 26
N
4
1
1
3 12
1
1
1
4
1
1
Sustainable Sites
2.15.11
Prereq 2
Prereq 3
Credit 1.1
1
1
1 to 2
1 to 5
1 to 5
1 to 2
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 35
Energy Efficiency Best Management Practices
Minimum Energy Efficiency Performance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Optimize Energy Efficiency Performance
Existing Building Commissioning—Investigation and Analysis
Existing Building Commissioning—Implementation
Existing Building Commissioning—Ongoing Commissioning
Performance Measurement—Building Automation System
Performance Measurement—System-Level Metering
On-site and Off-site Renewable Energy
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Emissions Reduction Reporting
1 to 18
2
2
2
1
1 to 2
1 to 6
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
2
Y
Y
1
Materials and Resources
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Credit
C dit 2.4
24
3
Innovation in Operations
1
1
Credit 1.1
Credit 1
1
1
1
1
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3
Credit 4
1
Credit 5
Certified 40 to 49 points
1
1
1
1
1
1
Silver 50 to 59 points
Credit 3.1
Credit 3.2
Credit 3.3
Credit 3.4
Credit 3.5
Credit 3.6
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
Possible Points: 10
Sustainable Purchasing Policy
Solid Waste Management Policy
Sustainable Purchasing—Ongoing Consumables
Sustainable Purchasing—Electric
Sustainable Purchasing—Furniture
Sustainable Purchasing—Facility Alterations and Additions
Sustainable Purchasing—Reduced Mercury in Lamps
Sustainable Purchasing—Food
Credit 2.3
Credit 2
Credit 3
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
Innovation in Operations: Specific Title
LEED Accredited Professional
Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts
3
Regional Priority Credits
1
1
1
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 1.4
74 15 17
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Priority:
Total
Gold 60 to 79 points
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
Specific Credit
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 15
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Green Cleaning Policy
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—IAQ Management Program
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Outdoor Air
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Increased Ventilation
IAQ Best Mgmt Practices—Reduce Particulates in Air Distribution
IAQ Mgmt Plan—IAQ Mgmt for Facility Alterations and Additions
Occupant Comfort—Occupant Survey
Controllability of Systems—Lighting
Occupant Comfort—Thermal Comfort Monitoring
Daylight
D li ht and
d Views
Vi
Green Cleaning—High Performance Cleaning Program
Green Cleaning—Custodial Effectiveness Assessment
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Products, Materials Purchases
Green Cleaning—Sustainable Cleaning Equipment
Green Cleaning—Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control
Green Cleaning—Indoor Integrated Pest Management
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Credit 1.4
Credit 1.5
1
Management—Waste Stream Audit
Management—Ongoing Consumables
Management—Durable Goods
Management—Facility Alterations and Additions
Indoor Environmental Quality
Prereq 1
1
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
Solid Waste
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 6
1
1
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 4
1
1
1
1
Possible Points: 110
Platinum 80 to 110
Appendix H: CSU Key Stakeholder Contact List
Credit
Organization/Department
Institute for the Built Environment
Facilities Management
Behavior Modification
Sociology
Facilities Management Intern
Hartshorn Health Services
Building Proctors
Clark‐ CURRENTLY NONE
Nat. Resources Ecology Lab
TILT‐Building Proctor
TILT‐Champion
Yates bridge floors 2&3
Yates bridge floors 4&5
Aspen Hall Contact Name
Josie Plaut
April Wackerman
Leah Neam
Carol Dollard
Jon Feiman
Jeni Cross
Alysse Brice
Gwen Sieving
Nancy Gus
Shirly Guitron
Barbara Maynard
Treva Creed
Christopher Rithner
Pete Wilson
SSc1
LEED Administrator
SSc2
Facilities Management
Facilities Management: Campus Landscape Architect
Susanne Cordery‐Cotter
Fred Harberecht
Facilities Management
Sandy's Pest Control
Doug Nagel
Sandy
SSc3
SSc4
Building Proctors
LEED Administrator
SSc5
CSU Real Estate Department
Facilities Management Facilities Management: Campus Landscape Architect
Nancy Hurt
Kristi Buffington
Fred Harberecht
Facilities Management: Campus Landscape Architect
Facilities Management
Fred Harberecht
Susanne Cordery‐Cotter
LEED Administrator
Facilities Management
Fred Harberecht
SSc6
SSc7.1
SSc7.2 Facilities Management: Campus Landscape Architect
Residential Life LEED Champion
Aller Linger Architects
Fred Harberecht
Rick Pott
Appendix H: CSU Key Stakeholder Contact List
SSc8
Campus lighting Plan
Facilities Management
Facilities Management: Campus Landscape Architect
Madalyn Alyx Yovanoff
Fred Harberecht
WEp1
LEED Administrator
WEc1
Facilities Management: Campus Landscape Architect
Fred Harberecht
LEED Admnistrator
Facilities Management: Campus Landscape Architect
Fred Harberecht
Facilities Management
Facilities Management; Master landscape plan
Facilities Management; Historical data
Ronald Robins
Fred Haberecht Heidi Mechtenberg
Facilities Management; Central Cooling Towers
Housing and Dining Services
Roger Elbrader
Mike Mahony
Facilities Management
Residential Life LEED Champion(Aspen)
Facilities Management; General info, Set points, etc…
Gene H Ellis
Rick Pott
Mike Rice
Facilities Management; Historical data
Facilities Management LEED Administrator
Heidi Mechtenberg
Kristi Buffington
Facilities Management
Gene H Ellis
Facilities Management
Residential Life LEED Champion (ASPEN)
Gene H Ellis
Rick Pott
Facilities Management
Residential Life LEED Champion
Gene H Ellis
Rick Pott
Facilities Management
Gene H Ellis
Project Team
Residential Life LEED Champion
Rick Pott
Housing and Dining Services
Facilities Management
Mike Mahony
Gene H Ellis
Facilities Management
Carol Dollard
WEc2
WEc3
WEc4
EAp1
EAp2
EAp3
EAc1
EAc2.1‐2.3
EAc3.1‐3.2
EAc4
(Aspen)
EAc5
EAc6
Appendix H: CSU Key Stakeholder Contact List
MRp1
Facilities Management: Purchasing Department
Facilities Management: Purchasing Department
Farrah A Bustamante
Bob Schur
Facilities Management
Sheela M Backen
HDS: Procurement
Purchasing
Karyn LeBlanc
Farrah A Bustamante
Facilities Management
Mike Davis
Purchasing
Facilities Management
Farrah A Bustamante
Ronald E Schlatter Jr
MRp2
MRc1‐2
MRc3
MRc4
MRc5
No food Service in Study's Buildings
MRc6
Facilities Management
HDS south residence halls (ASPEN)
Sheela M Backen
Lil Oppie
Facilities Management
Sheela M Backen
N/A
Surplus Property
Facilities Management
Mike Davis
Facilities Management
HDS: Operations Management
HDS: Operations Management
Facilities Management
Facilities Management
Susanne Cordery‐Cotter
Bill McBride
Kathy Young
Michael Aaron Rice
Jon Feiman
Facilities Management: Purchasing Department
Vice Pres for University Operations
Bob Schur
Rick Collins
Facilities Management: Purchasing Department
Facilities Management: Purchasing Department
Facilities Management
Residential Life LEED Champion
Farrah A Bustamante
Bob Schur
Jeff Sutton
Rick Pott
Facilities Management
HDS: Operations Management
HDS: Operations Management
Facilities Management
HDS
Susanne Cordery‐Cotter
Bill McBride
Kathy Young
Jeff Sutton
Lewis Sutphin
MRc7
MRc8
MRc9
IEQp1
IEQp2
IEQp3
IEQc1.1‐1.4
Appendix H: CSU Key Stakeholder Contact List
IEQc1.5
Facilities Management
HDS
Facilities Management
Mike Davis
Lewis Suphin
Michael Aaron Rice
IEQc2.1
Building Proctors
IEQc2.2
Design and Merchandising
Madalyn Alyx Yovanoff
HDS: Operations Management
Facilities Management
Facilities Management
Pete Wilson
Carol Dollard
Michael Aaron Rice
HDS
Contact building proctors for walkthorugh Cam Elvheim
Facilities Management
Residential Life LEED Champion
HDS‐south residence halls (ASPEN)
HDS‐south residence halls (ASPEN)
Jeff Sutton
Rick Pott
Lil Oppie
Karyn LeBlanc
Sandy's Pest Control
Facilities Management
Sandy
Sandra sheehan
IEQc2.3
IEQc2.4
IEQc3.1‐3.5
IEQ3.6