|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||
|
 |
Have a question about the CHPS Criteria?
Fill out the Criteria Interpretations Form and your question will be emailed
to our CHPS experts. You should receive an email response within 2 weeks.
Criteria
Interpretations Form FAQ's on CHPS Criteria SITE PLANNING A: While bike racks for 15% of the student body will not be appropriate for every school scenario, CHPS cannot make exceptions to this credit. CHPS tries to address all school conditions , and not all CHPS credits are appropriate for all scenarios (i.e., the reduced footprint credit is not appropriate for all suburban sites). Q: We are a privately funded school, and the architect is not familiar with Title 5 (Site Planning Prerequisite 1.1). Volume II does not seem to reference it, and the cde.ca.gov/facilities website references a long standard. Volume III says "engage the SFPD and DTSC to validate..." Is this something that the architect should reasonably be able to do, or is a specialized consultant likely to be needed? Can you give me even a very rough estimate of time and difficulty involved in meeting this req: $100, $1,000, $50,000? What steps do you recommend? A: As a private school, all you need to do is have the architect Q: Credit C5 asks to "Minimize outdoor illumination with no direct beam leaving site." I'm having trouble locating the CHPS definition on how to minimize outdoor illumination and what constitutes a direct beam leaving a site. If you could direct me as to where in the available downloads I could find this information, any assistance would be greatly appreciated. A: The definition of how to minimize outdoor light pollution is from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The IESNA Handbook and IESNA RP-33 state these requirements fully. (If you have a lighting consultant on this project they should be able to provide this information to you). The CHPS credit is similar to the LEED credit for this topic. If you have access to the LEED credit interpretations this will also help to explain the requirements. The CHPS Best Practices Manual Volume II Design contains a Guideline under the electric lighting chapter about outdoor lighting which may helpful also. If you do not have a copy of the BPM you may download one for free at www.chps.net. You will find the downloads under the "Publications and Resources" tab at the top of the page. ENERGY A: CHPS believes a cool roof serves a similar purpose to that of a radiant barrier. Either a cool roof OR a radiant barrier can be used to achieve the CHPS prescriptive points for 20% energy savings over T24 baseline. If a school is installing a cool roof, it will acheive the Site Planning cool roof credit (Credit 4.2) it does not need to install a radiant barrier to achieve the prescriptive energy points. Q: I recently attended a CHPS seminar at the Energy Resource Center in Downey taught by Erik Kolderup. I understand the CHPS HVAC criteria is based on savings above Title 24. Since the new nonresidential Title 24 standard for <65,000 Btuh equipment is 13 SEER for single phase and 10 SEER for three phase equipment in this size range, will the CHPS program criteria include 10 SEER when calculating savings with using three phase HVAC equipment? A: The CHPS Criteria is based on percentage savings above title-24. All calculations are done using energy modeling software following the protocols of the Title-24 ACM manual. As such any Title-24 requirements are included in these calculations. CHPS does not have criteria for ozone friendly refrigerants or UVC lights in HVAC at this time. Q: Title 24-2005 arrives in January. How will this change affect the old CHPS requirement for school design to exceed Title 24-2001 energy efficiency standards by 10%? A: Title 24 -2005 is currently scheduled to become effective in October 2005. Projects submitted to DSA before this date will use the current CHPS Criteria. CHPS is currently in the process of updating our Best Practices Manual, including Volume III, Criteria and will address this issue in the process. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY A: LEED low-emitting materials criteria cannot be substituted for the
CHPS criteria. CHPS requires "low-emitting" to be determined
using the Section 01350 protocol, which measures about 100 different chemicals.
LEED has different requirements for different materials. Some of the requirements
identify 4-5 chemicals, but most just define a total VOC level that the
product must be better than. Substituting LEED materials criteria for
CHPS would weaken the CHPS standard. Therefore, CHPS cannot recognize
LEED low-emitting materials as a substitute for the CHPS Low-Emitting
Materials credit (Credit 2.1) at this time. Q: How is the "daylight factor" calculated for the daylighting credit (IEQ Credit 1.1)? A: The daylight factor refers to the percentage of light in the Q: The CHPS Best Practices Manual, Vol. III, contains acoustical criteria (minimum and improved). The required test results are given, but specific testing methodologies are not. Are the recommended test methods given in other publications, e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard test protocols? If so, which? A: Please see American National Standard Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools. (ANSI S12.60-2002) You should find the test information you are looking for here. Q: My question is regarding the requirement for walk-off mats at all entrances under IEQ c3.1. Our design features exterior-loaded classrooms (like most schools in Southern California ). Every classroom has an exterior door. An effective walk-off mat is not feasible for each classroom due to space, budget, and M&O limitations. We do not want to install small ineffective mats just to meet the requirement. We have met every other requirement of that credit. In this credit, does the term "entrances" refer to major building entrances, or to any exterior door? If the credit does require walk-off mats in each classroom, are you aware of any effective techniques for providing that? A: The term "entrance" does refer to major building entrances. While walk-off mats are recognized as a very important step in reducing the amount of dirt in classrooms - and thus IAQ - CHPS recognizes it is not always feasible to install one at every classroom entry. Q: I find only two paint manufacturers listed as having products that comply with VOC requirements for CHPS indoor air quality: Dunn-Edwards and Frazee. Yet, there are more regional and national paint manufacturers who produce zero-VOC products that are equivalent in performance to the listed products. This presents a conflict, I believe, with California Public Contract Code Section 3400 which requires non-restrictive specifications. I realize that PCC Section 3400 only requires identification of two products," or equal," but there does not seem to be a process for evaluation and approval of these alternatives. How do the "or equal" products of Sherwin-Williams, ICI Dulux, Benjamin Moore and Vista Paint compete for CHPS projects, ensuring the most competitive pricing for school construction? A: To be certified as "equal" the products must be tested in accordance with the Section 01350 testing procedure. This is the only independently verifiable test that evaluates chemicals deemed toxic by the State of California . At this time only Dunn-Edwards and Frazee paints have submitted test results to CHPS. We have contacted the other paint manufacturers and are awaiting test results if their products pass the testing protocol. Q: We have done some energy modeling based on a/e design drawings. We have made suggestions for daylighting, but the energy modeling did not show the $ savings to have a good payback in life cycle cost analysis (because of how it was designed and not integrated into the design process from the beginning). We have also suggested more efficient electric lighting changes, along with glazing changes to accomplish more daylight transmittance into the classrooms. This may be possible within their budget. We are trying to have the district also look at student performance studies in making their decisions also. Here is the question: Right now, the existing plans call for 3x6 windows with single pane glazing with good SHGC properties. However, the visible light transmitance is only about 12-14%. This is the only opportunity for daylight to enter the classrooms. What is the CHPS required minimum visible light transmittance? The DSA required minimum? I would like to provide the school district with guidelines for their design that relate to the quality of the classroom lighting as well as the energy savings. A: CHPS does not have a required minimum visible light transmittance (nor does DSA as far I can determine). CHPS offers 3 points for providing a daylight factor of 2% in 75% of the classroom space. This can be achieved with a low VLT with a lot of windows or a high VLT with fewer windows. The VLT could also change depending on orientation. The goal is to achieve sufficient, uniform daylighting without being prescriptive. It sounds like this particular school would have a difficult time achieving uniform daylighting with the one small window regardless of VLT. Having stated that, a higher VLT that does not have a large impact on heat gain would still be of benefit. Q: The requirement to replace filtration media prior to occupancy with a minimum of MERV 13 filters is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a school using rooftop package units. MERV 13 (between 75% and 90% efficient according to ASHRAE 52.2 standards) filters will not fit in many "right-sized" units, nor will the fans in those units be strong enough to pull air through. In addition, this MERV 13 standard is higher than the 65% efficient filters called for in IEQ Credit 3.3, which correspond to about a MERV 7 or 8. It is difficult to understand why the prerequisite standard is higher than the credit standard. Our proposal, which would be applied to all LAUSD Phase II and III new schools (approximately 75), is that they may earn the prerequisite by installing new filtration media immediately prior to occupation. The efficiency of this filter will be of a standard, manufacturered-supplied filter, generally around 30%, our about a MERV 5. This is very similar to what is being proposed for LEED v2.2 IEQ Credit 3.1, which drops the reference to MERV 13. Our threshold for achieving IEQ Credit 3.3 would remain at 65%. As backup information for MERV = % efficiency ratings see www.airguard.com/laboratory.htm . When considering this request, please remember that it concerns a prerequisite, not a credit. In general, for a rating/certification system to be practical and implemented on a District-wide level such as we are attempting at LAUSD, prerequisites should not be too onerous implement, imply significantly higher costs, or require major redesign of buildings or systems. A: Our technical committee has discussed the issue and decided that we accept meeting IEQ Credit 3.3 as acceptable to meeting the filter requirement of IEQ prerequisite 1.5 until the new criteria is released. This requires all schools to earn one point for IEQ Credit 3.3. The new criteria should address this issue similar to your proposal below. However, until the new criteria is approved the committee feels that aligning with the current criteria is appropriate for now. Q:
Is there a link between the RC points and LEED points? A: Products listed on the CHPS Low Emitting Materials table have been tested for VOC emissions using the Section 01350 protocol for a typical classroom and the results submitted to CHPS. Products not listed can also be used provided they are tested using the same testing procedure and the results submitted to CHPS. The web listing is intended to make it easier for specifiers to find products that have been tested previously. You should ask the manufacturers if they have had their products tested, if they passed the test and if they have the lab report. Alternately you can ask if they are willing to have their products tested. Be aware there are other testing procedures performed by labs that do not meet the CHPS criteria. The RC column on the table represents products that contain Recycled Content. This is a separate point on the CHPS scoring system and some low emitting products also count towards recycled content. Many of the CHPS points are similar to LEED points but there is no connection between the two programs. Q: How do I reference the ventilation standards for relocatables as defined by CHPS? A:
The ventilation standards for relocatables are the Title-24 ventilation standards for typical classrooms. The problem with relocatables is that the standards are often not met due to undersized units, poor maintenance or more commonly because teachers turn off the ventilation system due to noise.
A: CHPS believes buses should not be encouraged when student demand is
low because most students walk or take public transportation. Low student
demand caused by lots of driving students or driving parents is not considered
adequate justification for "not needed." If a school district
provides busing for all schools except those centrally located (as defined
by CHPS Credit 1.3) and also close to public transportation (as defined
by CHPS Credit 2.1), then District Resolution Credit 6.1 should be awarded.
General FAQ's on CHPS programHigh Performance Schools are facilities that improve the learning environment while saving energy, resources, and money. So, what is the catch? Aren't these designs prohibitively expense and time consuming? The short answer is no: knowing the most effective way to manage priorities, time, and budget during the design and construction process is the key. The detailed answer is woven throughout this site and the best practices manual and addresses the important issues facings schools today: How high performance schools will help me educate students? High Performance design is a health and comfort issue. Daylighting has been shown to increase student learning. High indoor air quality is essential for teacher and student health. Good design produces more comfortable environments with proper illumination, air temperature, humidity, and noise reduction. This reduces distractions and creates environments where students can see clearly, hear accurately, and be thermally comfortable. Is it cost effective? Yes. It is not a coincidence that measures that increase student health and productivity also save energy and money. Creating healthy, comfortable environments demands understanding how building elements affect one another. Integrated design focuses on these interactions, and creates environments that are energy and resource efficient. These increased efficiencies save money on utility bills, and are so valuable that organizations will give you money to have them included in the design. Do I have to choose between housing more students and high performance? No. In the end, a school facility must be able to house all of the students. Reducing the number of classrooms to add high performance elements to other spaces is not an option. The key is identifying goals and budgets in advance and verifying that the designers and contractors explicitly understand your needs and their responsibilities. School construction budgets are tight, but cost-effective solutions can be found for nearly any budget. Will I have the time to do this? Yes. School design and construction timelines are short, and better design does not happen instantaneously. As a district, you must identify your goals early and communicate them clearly with the design team. They can then be integrated into the design from an early stage, and not require time and money intensive changes later in the process. Do I need to be an expert in high performance building design? No. It is the architect and engineer's role to maximize the effectiveness of the design. You must, however, identify and prioritize your goals. Without the luxuries of open timelines and budgets, every school design becomes a balanced system of tradeoffs. Understanding the value of high performance design will be important as choices arise. To make high performance
design a reality, school districts need to focus on five key elements: Have you completed the criteria for green rehabilitation of school buildings instead of the criteria for new buildings? The CHPS Criteria is in the process of being updated and should be released for public review and comment in July. There will not be a separate set of criteria for modernization projects as the features that make a school a CHPS school apply to all schools. There will be a more detailed discussion in the updated manual of how the criteria is applied to modernization projects. I am putting together a CHPS Criteria presentation for our architects. A question I know I'm going to get hit with: "Are relocatables (or portable classrooms) required to meet CHPS standards?" As these are "off the shelf" products, we may have little control over the manufacturer (how they construct their walls, which HVAC package they use, which fixtures are installed, etc.). Can you provide some honest insight as to the liklihood of a school using numerous portables becoming CHPS certified? I'm concerned with the cost factor of treating each portable classroom as a seperate unit. A single building school is consolidated and thus easier to design for meeting CHPS standards. This is a rather complex question and answer. First of all, if the project is a modernization or a new building on an existing campus then the CHPS Criteria would only apply to the work being done and thus only that portion of the school would be recognized as a CHPS school. Therefore relocatables would not have an impact in this case. If the school is a new school then relocatables would be considered to be part of entire school. (Are relocatables included in the scope of a new school?) A school can still earn the 28 required points with relocatables, though the "permanent" portion of the school may need to excel in some areas - i.e. you may need to be 15% better than Title-24 to average 10% for the entire project including relocatables. (The acoustic prerequisite may be a challenge to meet with relocatables however.) CHPS is in the process of finishing a "CHPS Relocatable Specification" that will meet our Criteria. This should be available on our website by February or March. This spec is an upgrade from the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) standard relocatable spec. The cost upgrade is approximately $2600 per unit and the energy savings are from 2.4% - 8.4% (depending on climate zone) and it will provide better daylighting, acoustics, IAQ and other benefits. The spec will be made available to manufacturers and school districts so that districts may "piggy back" their orders onto existing contracts. |
||
|
>
Home
>
CHPS Overview > CHPS
Schools > Training
and Events |
||||
