Paper on Energy Modeling Barriers

Holly Samuelson and team at the Harvard Graduate School of Design recently presented a paper on "Identifying Non-Technical Barriers to Energy Model Sharing and Reuse".  This is a topic dear to my heart as while I was at Harvard I chaired the Green Building Standards committee and wrote the language requiring all major renovation and new construction projects to submit as-built energy models in electronic format as part of their closeout documents.  We also recommended projects to use eQuest or Energy Plus unless they had a defendable reason why one of these programs wasn't viable.  As far as I know, this was the first such requirement and nobody really know how the industry would react.  Holly and friends took this idea and surveyed 154 energy modelers to see what they thought about sharing energy models.  A whopping 75% of the respondants indicated that they would share these files.  Those that wouldn't share gave a range of reasons including (in decreasing order of prevalence) that the models are too complicated to be understood by others, the models don't represent reality in the finished building, the model itself represents intellectual property not to be shared, and finally a couple of engineers felt that owners do not have staff qualified to receive the model (though I'm sure this is almost universally the case).  I spoke with Holly years ago when she was initially contemplating the paper and survey and she gave me a shout out in the acknowledgements for my help.  She also acknowledged fellow EA TAG member Chris Schaffner (the Green Engineer). Thanks Holly and keep up the great work.

LEED Costs

The following is a memo I wrote in response to a question asked by my boss (on behalf of one of the schools).


MEMO

From: Nathan Gauthier, Assistant Director, Harvard Office for Sustainability
Date: September 9, 2010
Re: Cost of LEED Gold at the Harvard _____ School

There have been a number of studies focused on identifying the cost of sustainability and the cost of LEED Certification. The consensus amongst these studies is that the cost premium varies from project to project, but if there is any premium, it is quickly recovered via the reduced operating costs of the building. Many studies, including a review of historic project costs at Harvard, indicate no statistical evidence of any added costs for LEED Certified projects compared to non-LEED projects. Published papers on the green premium tend to range between 0% and 2%; platinum projects with lots of renewable energy report as high as 15% above standard construction costs. All papers caveat their findings with warnings about the difficulty applying these findings to specific projects. An Office for Sustainability analysis of LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations at the _______ School indicates that all projects of this type can achieve LEED Certification without additional costs and can achieve LEED Gold with the addition of the specific LEED Credits required by the Green Building Standards and agreed upon by the Administrative Deans, the Greenhouse Gas Executive Committee, and the University Construction Management Council. The Harvard required LEED points are generally those that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions such as energy efficiency, building commissioning, and energy conservation measure verification. These requirements are pragmatic and provide significant operating savings over time with guidance that only elements that are net present value positive (a simple payback of 12 years or less) be included. Details of these findings can be found below.


Published Studies

The most commonly sited cost studies come from either Davis Langdon or Gregory Kats, both of whom have published multiple studies. The most exhaustive study in terms of sample size is the Cost of Green Revisited by Davis Langdon in 2006, which builds upon an earlier study by them conducted in 2004. The summary of finding is, “The 2006 study shows essentially the same results as 2004: there is no significant difference in average costs for green buildings as compared to non-green buildings.” They go on to identify individual LEED credits that generally have additional costs associated with them such as purchasing green power, installing renewable technologies, specifying certified woods, etc., but note that none of these credits are required to achieve LEED certification.

The most recent whole building cost study is Greening Our Built World by Greg Kats in 2009, which is the culmination of series of green building cost papers dating back to his The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings from 2003. According to the most recent study, green buildings cost roughly 2% more to build than conventional buildings and provide a wide range of financial, health and social benefits. In addition, green buildings reduce energy use by an average of 33%, resulting in significant cost savings.

The most recent effort to quantify LEED costs was published by Building Green in 2010 and included a number of New England firms on the research team. The Cost of LEED report does not attempt to quantify the overall cost premium of green buildings or LEED Certification, but instead attempts to help estimate the potential cost premium of each of the LEED credits in the LEED 2009 rating system. As such, this paper is not helpful in predicting an overall cost premium unless it is applied credit-by-credit to a planned building. It does point out that the majority of credits can be achieved at little or no cost premium for most projects and that these costs can typically be identified and included in the discussions around Life Cycle Costing and Value Engineering.


OFS Analysis

In 2007, the Harvard Green Campus reviewed the last 50 construction projects at Harvard, and came to the same conclusions as the Davis Langdon reports that there is no statistical evidence of increased hard or soft costs associated with green buildings. Besides having a relatively small sample size, the costs per square foot varied tremendously from project to project even in like building types and the costs seemed to have no correlation to the level of greenness or LEED Certification.

A review of the current LEED New Construction rating system and the Harvard Green Building Standards indicates that all new construction and major renovation projects at the Harvard _______ School can achieve LEED Certification relying only on those credits that have no cost impact such as low emitting materials and construction waste recycling. This review also shows that the addition of enhanced commissioning, measurement and verification, and the 30 to 34% energy efficiency goals bring these projects to LEED Gold while quickly paying for themselves through reduced operating expenses. The Green Building Standards working group used similar analysis to come to consensus around the LEED Gold and specific performance requirements.


Summary

Beyond the 3¢ to 5¢ per square foot cost to register and certify a project, it is possible to certify a building at the Harvard _______ School at the LEED Gold level without added construction costs beyond those associated with meeting the agreed upon minimum energy and water performance targets of the Green Building Standards, again which quickly (within 12 years or less) pay back through reduced operating costs. Because of the Green Building Standards’ emphasis on Life Cycle Costing and Integrated Design, the intent is to only include those sustainable design elements that meet the University’s financial payback thresholds and are considered to be Net Present Value positive investments. To this point, LEED Gold certified buildings can be said to be consistently less expensive per square foot on a present value basis than their non-green counterparts. The Harvard _______ School and Harvard Office for Sustainability have a long history of green building leadership and have leveraged this experience to streamline the process and deliver projects that are continually improving over time and being delivered in a more cost effective manner. Clearly defined expectations of the design and construction teams help ensure selection of teams that consider delivery of green buildings to be standard practice and minimal additional fee.

Commissioning Data Center

Last week we walked around the new data center for the management company to perform pre-functional and functional testing (depending on the equipment). The UPS still couldn't be tested because there were still issues with a transfer switch. We looked at the 4 CRAC units, one of which was still hooked up to the vacuum to remove moisture before being re-charged with refrigerant. The two larger CRACs had to have their refrigerant removed, be cut in half to get in the elevator, and then re-assembled. There were a couple of problems with the wiring of one of these, the result of a wiring harness being re-installed improperly. Both of the large units needed to have insulation added since it was removed when it was cut (photo to the right). There was also a very small domestic water copper pipe used for humidification that should be insulated and secured to the frame so that it didn't vibrate against the frame and eventually wear through (photo on the left - the larger diameter pipe was secured with a vibration dapening clamp). One of the large CRAC units was moving 16% less air than it should and the motor was going to be re-shived to fix.

Another of the issues we looked for were un-sealed penetrations in the floor and ceiling since both were being used as a plenum for supply (floor) and return (celing) air. The floor was sealed pretty good with only a couple of penetrations that were missed (photo on the left), but the ceiling had lots of unsealed penetrations (photo on the right). Kevin Sheehan (on the ladder) and Kevin Bright (in the floor) are using a flashlight to look for these issues in the photos below.





















Another issue we identified during this trip was the chilled water pressure gauges, which were supposed to be 6" diameter and instead were 4" diameter. Obviously this isn't a huge deal, but they were pretty clearly called for in the spec and we've asked the contractor to replace.

LEED Certification, When Is It Worth It?

Question from LinkedIn:
LEED per square foot: When is it worth it?

Nathan's Rather Lengthy Response:
We've started to pursue LEED certification for a lot of our smaller commercial interior projects (and all of our big full gut renovations or new construction projects). Once the contractors / designers have worked on a few projects, we've found no soft cost premium (and since we always put the LEED requirement in the RFP, only people who already know or are willing to learn on their dime will respond competitively). For those few firms who say LEED will be a big up charge, we ask why specifically. We will get ridiculous reasons like "to do the ventilation rate calculations", "to track C&D waste diversion", or "to do line of sight geometries." The obvious response is to ask how they were planning on sizing ventilation loads, confirming they were meeting our 95% C&D waste diversion requirement, or verifying the percentage of occupants who could see a window. Since these things are important to us, we have them as requirements in our contracts and construction documents. Since they're important to us, we expect teams to provide verification that they're meeting our requirements. Since they're preparing the verification anyway, there is almost no extra work to go for LEED. Since we are able to collect all of the LEED documentation and compare past projects to future projects, we're able to ensure that our buildings are getting better and better over time (making sure the learning that comes from a project stays with us rather than leaving with the project team). We have seen a tremendous benefit from commissioning but some reluctance on smaller projects, so we now offer an in-house commissioning service for these projects (we've seen amazing benefits even when only commissioning light controls and bathroom fixtures). We don't consider this an added cost of LEED, again because the benefits are so obvious all projects should be doing this, LEED or not. So on a small (say $500,000 classroom fit-out) project, the extra $3,000 seems well worth it to us.

Hard cost premiums are always optional and we evaluate those on a case by case basis in light of benefit to the project versus additional cost (LEED points being only a secondary concern). Added cost for MDF w/o urea formaldehyde? Yes, but the few buildings we've used urea formaldehyde MDF we've gone in, conducted IAQ tests, and can see elevated levels of formaldehyde in the space. Let's go with no urea formaldehyde (our standard). PV on the roof? Payback is generally more than 20 years (as a non-profit we don't get tax credits - this all changes with a PPA). We have other projects we can spend the money on with much better payback / environmental benefit. We typically don't go with PV. FSC wood is case by case. Improved HVAC equipment is usually a yes and we try to minimize additional cost by pursuing utility incentives and using integrated design to right-size everything / realize the interactions between systems.

I completely agree when you're doing most of the work yourself and you’re really passionate you can hold yourself accountable. My brother and I built his house recently and we held ourselves accountable (he did most of the work, but I helped on occasion and with equipment selection). The couple of thousand dollars extra for LEED for Homes was more than he wanted to spend (house cost $350 K). Though the house is beautiful and efficient, as money and time ran short, there are all sorts of minor corners that he or his subs ended up cutting that collecting documentation (which is VERY minimal in LEED for Homes) would have helped address. Admittedly, he's not really passionate about the environment (we was more concerned about utility bills), but imagine what happens as soon as you have somebody else doing your construction with little direct oversight from the owner. Without documentation many environmental claims can't really be trusted and history has proven this over and over again. On a side note, in his market (SW Michigan) he asked the appraiser about the ground source heat pump (what I think is meant by geothermal above) and was told they give no additional value for that system, though a propane tank does add to the home’s value. We went with the GSHP anyway, but only because the cost came in competitive with propane furnace. We didn’t go with the highest efficiency heat pumps because there was no way the system would pay for itself within its life span (we picked a mid-level unit – much of the winter heating is provided by a wood burning stove). How tight was the envelope when we were done? We don’t know because we didn’t do a blower door test. I’m sure he’ll continue to tell people it is tight though because he built it and he meant it to be tight.

Regarding the statement about LEED focusing on design rather than verification, of course this is why there is a LEED for Existing Buildings Operations and Maintenance rating system. All of the same arguments about certification apply. Of course you don’t need LEED to have a high performing building, but to be a good building manager you need to have an energy management strategy and track your utility bills on a monthly basis. You need to have a preventative maintenance plan and keep it up to date. You need to have staff training plans. You need to regularly do energy audits. Etc. If you are doing all of this, then LEED is very easy and has little cost. In all projects I’ve been on (more than 100 LEED projects), the teams that found LEED to be a lot of work were the ones that weren’t actually designing / building / operating in a sustainable manner and creating the documentation seemed hard because it forced them to actually go back and create documents that should have been created from the beginning if they were serious about sustainability.

Just my thoughts, not necessarily shared by Harvard, the USGBC, or anybody else with whom I'm affiliated.

CO2 Sensor Placement

EMAIL: I've been curious for a while about the discrepancy between the recommendations for sampling locations expressed in ASTM D6245 and the ASHRAE and US GBC requirement for being in the breathing zone. After reviewing some of monitoring data for a nearby school, I'm finding that there are significant problems associated with this sampling location requirement, so I thought I'd pass it along.


RESPONSE: Thanks for the paper (indicating temporary CO2 spikes of over 1,000 ppm due to people exhaling near the sensor). I think CO2 sensor placement is like occupancy sensor or thermostat placement in that it must be located intelligently. For an occupancy sensor, it has to sense the people coming in but not be falsely triggered by people in the halls or miss people behind obstacles. For thermostats, they need to be close enough to the occupants to represent their conditions w/o getting direct sunlight to artificially read hot. For CO2 sensors, they need to be in the breathing zone to represent the air that people are actually breathing but not so close to people as to get artificially high readings from nearby exhalation. You always hear about stratification of air and this is why I’d want the CO2 sensor in the breathing zone “strata”. In a well mixed room, I guess it wouldn’t matter, but I don’t know how many rooms are well mixed or how you’d be sure yours was one. I’ve seen a number of engineers place them in a return air duct which is fed from a ceiling mounted grate, but in these same rooms the warm supply air is provided from ceiling diffusers and it seems like fresh warm air could stay along the ceiling and go straight to the exhaust, giving the CO2 sensor an artificial low reading. In the scenario I just described, ASHRAE 62 gives that style of room a 0.8 zone air distribution factor and assumes the room isn’t adequately mixed. In those rooms I’d much rather see it in the breathing zone. We’ve worked on a couple of day cares and talked about demand control ventilation for children and felt the CO2 sensor should be even lower to get the air quality where the kids were actually breathing.

Of course, I’m not the IAQ expert, so I’d defer to you as to the likelihood of adequate room air mixing. Maybe a similar study with CO2 sensors at different elevations would help, though most building owners aren’t going to want to pay for this.

LEED for Sub Training

On November 5th, the Massachusetts Membership Forum (soon to be MA USGBC Chapter) hosted a "LEED for Subs" workshop. Suffolk and Moriarty were the workshop sponsors, NSTAR was the venue host, Ver-Tex the lunch sponsor, and Consigli and Erland the table sponsors. The event had more than 120 people in attendance, mostly sub-contractors. It was very well received, with lots of positive comments in the session reviews. I opened the 1/2 day event with a presentation on the following:


– Why Build Green
– US Green Building Council
– LEED® Rating Systems
– LEED® 2009
– LEED® Credit Categories

The presentation is attached. Bill Holland followed with a presentation on the Materials and Resources credits and Marie Nolan with one on the Indoor Environmental Quality credits. Jim Newman closed the session talking about green building resources.

Water Savings Calculations

Question sent by email:

I've heard you say you can save 40% of domestic water without any added cost. How do you do this? Is it use of gray water for flushing in addition to waterless urinals, low flow toilets, aerators on sinks, etc???

Response:

It was very easy to do in the past with fixture selection. The water efficient fixtures we use have no added cost compared to conventional fixtures. We could save a tiny bit more with gravity fed toilets (the kind with the tank like you have at home), but we usually use flushometer toilets (the more commercial kind with the silver pipes sticking out of the wall).

Lets look at the calculations assuming there are two people in the building, one man and one woman.

Base Case (code compliant)

Toilet = 1.6 gpf - 3 times/day for woman, 1 time for man

Urinal = 1.0 gpf - 0 times/day for woman, 2 times for man

Sink = 2.5 gpm @ 80 psi - 3 times/day for 25 seconds for everybody

Shower = 2.5 gpm @ 80 psi - 1 times/day for 5 minutes for 10% of people

Design Case (what we do)

Toilet = 1.6 / 1.1 gpf dual flush - 1 full 2 half times/day for woman, 1 full for man

Urinal = 0 gpf - 0 times/day for woman, 2 times for man

Sink = 0.5 gpm @ 80 psi - 3 times/day for 20 seconds (sensors) for everybody

Shower = 1.6 gpm @ 80 psi - 1 time/day for 5 minutes for 10% of people

The scenario above would save 48.1% of the water in an office setting based on a comparison to EPAct 1992 (calculation for LEED NC v2.2):

Now we usually get a little less credit for the same water usage because the base case for commercial sinks has been reduced to 0.5 gpm @ 60 psi.

Base Case (code compliant)

Toilet = 1.6 gpf - 3 times/day for woman, 1 time for man

Urinal = 1.0 gpf - 0 times/day for woman, 2 times for man

Sink = 0.5 gpm @ 60 psi - 3 times/day for 25 seconds for everybody

Shower = 2.5 gpm @ 80 psi - 1 times/day for 5 minutes for 10% of people

Design Case (what we do)

Toilet = 1.6 / 1.1 gpf dual flush - 1 full 2 half times/day for woman, 1 full for man

Urinal = 0 gpf - 0 times/day for woman, 2 times for man

Sink = 0.5 gpm @ 80 psi - 3 times/day for 20 seconds (sensors) for everybody

Shower = 1.6 gpm @ 80 psi - 1 time/day for 5 minutes for 10% of people

The scenario above would save 34.8% of the water in an office setting based on a comparison to EPAct 1992 and the new commercial fixture rules (calculation for LEED 2009). Of course there is no kitchen sink in this example (assuming a college dorm), but that would have to be added in if appropriate:

Residential buildings code still allows 2.5 gpm sinks, so we typically save 38.1% in old and new versions of LEED.

Base Case (code compliant)

Toilet = 1.6 gpf - 5 flushes/day for all

Sink = 0.5 gpm @ 60 psi - 5 times/day for 25 seconds

Shower = 2.5 gpm @ 80 psi - 1 time/day for 5 minutes

Design Case (what we do)

Toilet = 1.6 / 1.1 gpf dual flush - 1 full & 4 half flushes/day for all

Sink = 0.5 gpm @ 80 psi - 5 times/day for 25 seconds

Shower = 1.6 gpm @ 80 psi - 1 times/day for 5 minutes

Of course the calculations above are done for 2 people, but the percent reduction will remain the same regardless of the number of people as long as you assume a 50/50 split between men and women.

We have plans to use greywater in some buildings and one of my projects in South Carolina did this (see Half Moon Outfitters case study). Showers really drive the numbers in residential buildings and it is possible to go below 1.6 gpm. We usually use Delta H20 Kinetic showers, but many of the best low-flow showers aren't allowed in Massachusetts because they're not on the approved plumbing list. The toilet in the top right is a tank-type dual flush from Dubai. The urinal on the bottom left uses no water for flushing and has a trap that can be cleaned and refilled with oil (Kohler Steward).

Hope this helps.

Integrated Design and LEED

On Monday, September 14th, I taught my first full lecture at our ENVR 119, Green Building Design, Construction and Operations class at the Harvard Extension School. The class was well attended (about 40 people in the classroom) and was watched by many more live via the web. For the first time we had an online chat room up so that people could talk to each other during the class and ask questions, which teaching fellow Andrea Ruedy Trimble would read aloud. We know at least one student watched from Brazil and we expect the class from Tsinghua University in China to watch the recorded version. Tsinghua University has partnered with the Extension School to offer our class at their University, watching our lectures and using our assignments, but grading their own papers and supplementing our lectures with their own introductions.

The class on Monday was extended to three hours instead of its usual two hour format. For the first hour, I spoke about Integrated Design. The class asked lots of good questions and we had excellent participation. Rafal Shurma spoke next for one hour about international green building rating systems. It always makes me smile to see BREAM for Prisons as a formal rating system. Finally, I spoke from 9:30 to 10:30 pm about the US Green Building Council's LEED Rating System. I talked about the overall structure of the LEED system and then walked through the specific environmental attributes identified in the 2009 version of LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations. We also announced a study group for students wanting to prepare for the LEED Green Associate examination. A surprisingly high percentage of students stayed in class until 10:30 and about 5 even stuck around to ask questions. Copies of both of my presentations are attached.

LEED for Homes Platinum

Walked by 2 Grant Street the other day. This is Harvard's first LEED for Homes Platinum building. It was a full-gut renovation of a 1,000 square foot house originally built in 1867. The project used a Mitsubishi Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) to ventilate the house in an energy efficient manner (pictured). This is a preferred method of ventilation compared to ventilating by leaving the building envelope really leaky (the more common method) and is especially effective in a hot-roof application where insulation is applied directly to the underside of the roof (as was done in 2 Grant). The project uses a high efficiency condensing furnace (95.5% efficient) for heat and air conditioner (13 SEER) for cooling and Icynene spray insulation to improve the envelope performance. Domestic hot water is provided by an instantaneous water heater as needed by the occupants (no storage tank) and all appliances were selected to be Energy Star rated. The team selected all low-emitting materials and otherwise environmentally friendly materials, water efficient fixtures (saving 40%), and carefully designed the project to be durable and avoid mold or moisture damage. This is only the second LEED for Homes Platinum at any university and the fist renovation.

Green Building Class

On Monday, we had the first ENVR 119, Green Building Design, Construction, and Operations class of the year. So far there are more than 75 students signed up for the class that is offered live and via distance learning. This is the fourth time we've offered ENVR 119. Jack Spengler (pictured above right) provided the course introduction as well as a lecture on the impacts of buildings on the environment and human health. Dr. Spengler is the Akira Yamaguchi Professor of Environmental Health and Human Habitation in the Exposure, Epidemiology & Risk Program, within the Department of Environmental Health, at Harvard University's School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts and is a world renowned expert on indoor air quality. Andrea Trimble followed with a review of the course syllabus and schedule. Andrea (pictured to the left) is manager of the Harvard Office for Sustainability Green Building Services. Rafal Schurma and Agnes Vorbrodt-Schurma introduced themselves and spoke briefly about their experiences starting the Polish Green Building Council. I followed with a very brief introduction of myself and a quick presentation on integrated design and the design and construction process (time was limited). A copy of my presentation can be found below.

Talk at GSD

Our director and I guest lectured on Wednesday this week in the Planning and Building Sustainable Campuses executive education class at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. About 20 students attended the class, which was organized by Dan Kenney and a team from Sasaki Architects. My part of the lecture is attached. I'd taken the group on a tour of Rockefeller Hall (soon to be LEED NC v2.2 Gold) to the same group on Tuesday. Roy Lauridsen of the Harvard Divinity School met us at the building and lead the tour.

Holyoke 4th Floor Commissioning

This morning we conducted functional testing as part of our commissioning of the Holyoke Center 4th Floor fit-out. During the electrical portion of the commissioning, we confirmed all occupancy sensors were working correctly and set to the proper timing (the first project we've looked at with all occupancy sensors working correctly before commissioning). However, we noticed that the light fixtures were not dimming up and down based on the presence of daylight as they were supposed to. It turns out they needed to be set up with the photosensor tool before they'll dim, but this had not been done. We were able to work with the lighting installer and have them set the minimum (nearly off) and maximum (set to provide just over 50 foot candles at the work surfaces rather than fully on) levels for each fixture. We also made sure operating the daylight responsive dimming feature was added to the operator training planned for the next day.

SCUP Conference

Last week at the SCUP conference we presented on the Hamilton Hall project from the Business School. The architect, Nancy Goodwin of Finegold Alexander + Associates, started by introducing the project and it's LEED gold rating. Ken Beck, project engineer from BLW Engineers, followed with a talk about the building's controls, which included the first use of occupancy sensors to control thermostats on campus. I followed with a look at how the Buisiness School and the University leveraged the initial successes from Hamilton Hall into bigger successesses in future projects and eventually into campus-wide policy changes. A copy of the presentation can be found here.

Funny LEED Review

Earlier this month, an associate received a preliminary LEED review questioning their submittal for MR prerequisite 1, Collection and Storage of Recyclables. Specifically, the reviewer didn't feel that the recycling collection listed in the document on the top right, which includes "Cans, Glass & Plastic", in addition to the paper and cardboard collection elsewhere in the building, met the requirements of LEED. The review stated that collecting "cans" was not sufficient to cover the "metal" recycling required by LEED. While I assured my associate that they could still get the prerequisite with some clever wordsmithing, I was quite amused last week when I visited the new USGBC headquarters at 2101 L Street, NW in Washington, DC and saw the recycling collection bins pictured on the bottom left, which collect "Glass, Cans & Plastic". Do you think they'll fail to achieve LEED CI status because they missed a prerequisite?

Fume Hood Ventilation

The Jacobsen Lab in Harvard University's Mallinckrodt Building uses Mott variable volume fume hoods to help save energy by reducing the volume of air being exhausted (and as a result reducing the fresh air brought into the space that needs to be heated or cooled) as the hood sash is closed. The hoods are saving additional energy by having air movement with 80 feet per minute face velocity entering the hood, reduced from the typical 100 fpm or higher in most hoods (the hood was tested and demonstrated safe containment at 60 fpm). To ensure occupant safety, each hood has a digital display indicating the face velocity, with an alarm sounding if it were to go too low and a purge button that allows the occupant to increase volume to 300% of normal if there is a spill. Occupants are educated about the hoods' operations and then provided with large digital displays at the entrance to the lab that indicate total volume of air being exhausted in cubic feet per minute. Lab users know what the volume should be if all hoods are closed and can quickly assess whether a hood was left open and is unnecessarily wasting energy (as Philip Kreycik is doing in the pictures above and below). The newly renovated Jacobsen lab is pursuing a Gold rating from the US Green Building Council's Commercial Interior rating system and has integrated a number of sustainable design elements into the project.

LEED EQ c8.2

Question: I am looking at your site and, if possible, would like to see the dwgs and/or diagrams for EQ c 8.1 & 8.2.

Answer: Here is a very simple example we did for the Half Moon Outfitters job. There is a plan view showing line-of-sight geometries and a section. Hope this helps.

Hip Hop Archive Cx

A few weeks ago the Harvard Office for Sustainability and Harvard Facilities Maintenance Operations commissioned the newly renovated Hip Hop Archive in Cambridge, MA. The project is part of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research. These pictures show Kevin Sheehan (FMO) and Kevin Bright (OFS) looking at one of the heat pumps and the associated condensate pump (pouring in a cup of water to make sure it starts up correctly). The project is finishing up the LEED for Commercial Interiors certification process and will be submitted soon. The picture on the bottom should include an outside air duct brought into the heat pump (as shown on the "as-builts"), but it isn't there. We added it to our report.

North Conway LL Bean

The new 14,500 square foot L.L. Bean store in North Conway, New Hampshire was completed in the Summer of 2008, at a project cost of $1.4 million. This single story building joins the larger Settlers’ Crossing commercial complex of retail establishments and restaurants at the junction of Routes 16 and 302. The project team was committed to sustainability and pursuing the US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building rating system. The project was one of the first to utilize the new LEED for Retail certification, taking part in the initial pilot phase. The team focused on an integrated design to reduce its environmental impact and maximize occupant health and comfort. The project is awaiting its final LEED certification.

Commissioning 10 Akron St.

This picture shows Kevin Short of Facility Dynamics Engineering verifying the temperature and pressure inside the Harvard Real Estate Services 10 Akron Street dormitory. Tim Scruby is on the other end of the walkie talkie confirming that the building management system is giving the same readings.

Commissioning Rock Hall

This picture shows commissioning authority Larry Voltin of Facility Dynamics Engineering looking over the shoulder of the Siemens' building controls sub-contractor as part of his final walk-through of Harvard Divinity School's Rockefeller Hall.