<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Energy and Atmosphere P3 &#8211; Fundamental Refrigerant Management (prerequisite)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/</link>
	<description>The Best Resource For Anyone Who Wants to Pass the LEED AP Exam. Over 100,000 Served and Counting!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:30:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-2500</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 02:05:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-2500</guid>
		<description>Rachel,
Please read para 3 and 4 under Environmental Issues section on page 171. There is reference to the Montreal Protocol but you are right - it&#039;s not a standard referenced for this prerequisite. Can someone clarify this please?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rachel,<br />
Please read para 3 and 4 under Environmental Issues section on page 171. There is reference to the Montreal Protocol but you are right &#8211; it&#8217;s not a standard referenced for this prerequisite. Can someone clarify this please?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-2499</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 20:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-2499</guid>
		<description>How come you list the Montreal Protocol as a standard, but ref guide 2.2 does not?

Thanks again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How come you list the Montreal Protocol as a standard, but ref guide 2.2 does not?</p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wes</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1698</link>
		<dc:creator>Wes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1698</guid>
		<description>&quot;Phase-out plans extending beyond the project completion date will be considered on their merits.&quot;

Similar to others above, had a sample test question that asked something about these &quot;merits&quot; even though it sounds like a 5 year phase-out plan is perfectly acceptable.  Something to be aware of in case it comes up on the real test.

&quot;Prior to phase-out, reduce annual leakage of CFC-based refrigerants to 5% or less...&quot;

Another sample test question I had wrong because I was relating the 5% or less to just the alternative option for existing buildings (project excused from this prerequisite if simple payback is greater than 10 years).

&quot;If CFC-based refrigerants are maintained in the central system, reduce annual leakage to 5% or less...and reduce total leakage over the remaining life of the unit to less than 30% of its refrigerant charge.&quot;

Another piece of info to be aware of.  Was asked about the 30% aspect on another sample question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Phase-out plans extending beyond the project completion date will be considered on their merits.&#8221;</p>
<p>Similar to others above, had a sample test question that asked something about these &#8220;merits&#8221; even though it sounds like a 5 year phase-out plan is perfectly acceptable.  Something to be aware of in case it comes up on the real test.</p>
<p>&#8220;Prior to phase-out, reduce annual leakage of CFC-based refrigerants to 5% or less&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>Another sample test question I had wrong because I was relating the 5% or less to just the alternative option for existing buildings (project excused from this prerequisite if simple payback is greater than 10 years).</p>
<p>&#8220;If CFC-based refrigerants are maintained in the central system, reduce annual leakage to 5% or less&#8230;and reduce total leakage over the remaining life of the unit to less than 30% of its refrigerant charge.&#8221;</p>
<p>Another piece of info to be aware of.  Was asked about the 30% aspect on another sample question.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1142</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1142</guid>
		<description>Hi Tyler,

This is directly from the LEED Reference guide:

&quot;If the building is existed to an existing chilled water system, that system must be CFC-free; or a commitment to phasing out CFC-based refrigerants, with a firm timeline of five years from substantial completion of the project, must be in place&quot; 

So, I&#039;m guessing 5 years from substantial completion based on this, if the new system cannot be CFC-free right away.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Tyler,</p>
<p>This is directly from the LEED Reference guide:</p>
<p>&#8220;If the building is existed to an existing chilled water system, that system must be CFC-free; or a commitment to phasing out CFC-based refrigerants, with a firm timeline of five years from substantial completion of the project, must be in place&#8221; </p>
<p>So, I&#8217;m guessing 5 years from substantial completion based on this, if the new system cannot be CFC-free right away.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyler</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1141</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:54:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1141</guid>
		<description>Hi pat,

This question has been asked before (Mellissa Sept. 21 2008), but Im asking it again just incase anyone has found the answer.

Im not sure if there is a 5 year phase out for eleminating CFC in existing buildings.  According to the practice test I just took, the cfc&#039;s must be phased out prior to project completion.  Any extentions (past project completion) will be considered on their merits.

5 years or project completion?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi pat,</p>
<p>This question has been asked before (Mellissa Sept. 21 2008), but Im asking it again just incase anyone has found the answer.</p>
<p>Im not sure if there is a 5 year phase out for eleminating CFC in existing buildings.  According to the practice test I just took, the cfc&#8217;s must be phased out prior to project completion.  Any extentions (past project completion) will be considered on their merits.</p>
<p>5 years or project completion?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim B</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1137</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1137</guid>
		<description>Franco, Thanks for your response.  I think you are right about the ID point and perhaps could earn points for CI SSc1L Other Quantifiable Environmental Performance? Synergies- I could refer to NC EAc4 Enhanced Refrigerant Mgt.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Franco, Thanks for your response.  I think you are right about the ID point and perhaps could earn points for CI SSc1L Other Quantifiable Environmental Performance? Synergies- I could refer to NC EAc4 Enhanced Refrigerant Mgt.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franco</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1133</link>
		<dc:creator>Franco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1133</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think you can earn a point for the prerequisite, but the possibility for exemplary performance ID point looks more than the statutory requirements and involves CIR submission. 

The way I read it is that zero use in new tenant HVAC&amp;R - installed or renovated. To comply, under NC 2.2 one would have to show that existing CFC-based refrigerants are to be phased out (NC 2.2, EAp3, page 172, col. 1). 

I think you get the ID point in CI for an existing system that gets replaced as a consequence of your project to show zero CFC and GWP.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think you can earn a point for the prerequisite, but the possibility for exemplary performance ID point looks more than the statutory requirements and involves CIR submission. </p>
<p>The way I read it is that zero use in new tenant HVAC&amp;R &#8211; installed or renovated. To comply, under NC 2.2 one would have to show that existing CFC-based refrigerants are to be phased out (NC 2.2, EAp3, page 172, col. 1). </p>
<p>I think you get the ID point in CI for an existing system that gets replaced as a consequence of your project to show zero CFC and GWP.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim B</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1130</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:12:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-1130</guid>
		<description>In reference to EAp3 CFC reduction in HVAC&amp;R, My reference guide LEED CI,v 2.0 pg 142 states that an ID point is possible for projects that demonstrate that eliminate use of Ozone depleting materials with GWP from the project.  I was under the impression that points were never awarded for Prerequisites. Does anyone have information regarding this? Thanks,</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reference to EAp3 CFC reduction in HVAC&amp;R, My reference guide LEED CI,v 2.0 pg 142 states that an ID point is possible for projects that demonstrate that eliminate use of Ozone depleting materials with GWP from the project.  I was under the impression that points were never awarded for Prerequisites. Does anyone have information regarding this? Thanks,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franco</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-856</link>
		<dc:creator>Franco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:32:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-856</guid>
		<description>The intent section exempts small equipment.

What happens when the total number of small refrigerators (less than 0.5 lbs of refrigerant) are a lot? 

There are previous (non-LEED) projects I&#039;ve worked on like medical testing labs that have a lot of these little refrigerators all over the place. Then there are a couple of big beverage companies that likewise have a lot of coolers and refrigerators. A dozen of these little units pushes your refrigerant past the 5 lbs mark. No such thing as &quot;critical mass&quot; for this prerequisite? 

Any kind of explanation to clarify a case like this would really help. Thank you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The intent section exempts small equipment.</p>
<p>What happens when the total number of small refrigerators (less than 0.5 lbs of refrigerant) are a lot? </p>
<p>There are previous (non-LEED) projects I&#8217;ve worked on like medical testing labs that have a lot of these little refrigerators all over the place. Then there are a couple of big beverage companies that likewise have a lot of coolers and refrigerators. A dozen of these little units pushes your refrigerant past the 5 lbs mark. No such thing as &#8220;critical mass&#8221; for this prerequisite? </p>
<p>Any kind of explanation to clarify a case like this would really help. Thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-829</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:01:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-829</guid>
		<description>@ Melissa,

I believe the normal phase out period is 5 years, but depending on the situation, probably for really large scale projects with low budgets, they will extend the phase out beyond 5 years, since they are trying to do the right thing, and they&#039;ll earn this credit. If you can, you should try and find a CIR about this as I&#039;m sure others have had the same question, who are working on real life projects. Good luck!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Melissa,</p>
<p>I believe the normal phase out period is 5 years, but depending on the situation, probably for really large scale projects with low budgets, they will extend the phase out beyond 5 years, since they are trying to do the right thing, and they&#8217;ll earn this credit. If you can, you should try and find a CIR about this as I&#8217;m sure others have had the same question, who are working on real life projects. Good luck!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: a different Melissa</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-819</link>
		<dc:creator>a different Melissa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:14:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-819</guid>
		<description>In the summary page for EA p3, it says that &quot;phase-out plans extending beyond the project completion date will be considered on their merits,&quot; but in the Approach &amp; Implementation section, it says there&#039;s a timeline of 5 years. So do you get 5 years for phase-out, or not?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the summary page for EA p3, it says that &#8220;phase-out plans extending beyond the project completion date will be considered on their merits,&#8221; but in the Approach &amp; Implementation section, it says there&#8217;s a timeline of 5 years. So do you get 5 years for phase-out, or not?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: valeria</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-555</link>
		<dc:creator>valeria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 05:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-555</guid>
		<description>what does short environmental lifetime mean?  in selecting refrigerants a should have a short environmental life and be small ODP and small GWP. The phrase is in Approach and Implementation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>what does short environmental lifetime mean?  in selecting refrigerants a should have a short environmental life and be small ODP and small GWP. The phrase is in Approach and Implementation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bettina</title>
		<link>http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-359</link>
		<dc:creator>Bettina</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 14:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.greenexamacademy.com/eap3/#comment-359</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been following your website and I think it is excellent and very helpful!

One thing I&#039;d like to add to EA p. 3: I think it&#039;s important to note the alternative option, which is to provide proof that replacement of EB CFC-using HVAC systems is not &quot;economically feasible&quot; (will take more than 10 years for simple payback), thus excusing you from this prerequisite, but that you have to minimize leakage to less than 5%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been following your website and I think it is excellent and very helpful!</p>
<p>One thing I&#8217;d like to add to EA p. 3: I think it&#8217;s important to note the alternative option, which is to provide proof that replacement of EB CFC-using HVAC systems is not &#8220;economically feasible&#8221; (will take more than 10 years for simple payback), thus excusing you from this prerequisite, but that you have to minimize leakage to less than 5%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

