CS 2009 MRc2: Construction Waste Management

Paola, you pose an interesting question. I think your first hunch is a little misguided because if the product were used as an ADC-like material at landfills then it would be included in the MRc2 calculation. See Calculations on page 359 of the first version of the BD+C Reference Guide, which states, “Any construction debris processed into a recycled content commodity that has an open-market value (e.g., alternative daily coverAlternative daily cover is material (other than earthen material) that is placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. material) may be applied to the construction waste calculation.” The product that results after the special treatment is a result of something that your team brought to the site (Bentonite mud), right? If so, then I would say that since you brought it on site, it is earth-like and not soil, and it is definitely not from land-clearing operations, then you should include it in your MRc2 calculations as diverted waste.

Please note that in the first and second public comment drafts of LEED 2012 they have finally addressed ADC and are excluding it from counting towards diverted debris. See http://www.leeduser.com/topic/leed-2012-certification-2nd-public-comment... for more info.

Elizabeth -- Michelle asked me to share this link to a comment on the NC 2009 forum about a project where she split this out successfully.

Petr, please note that the definition for Construction and Demolition debris includes a description of land-clearing debris. It further notes that renovation, demolition, or deconstruction relates to preexisting structures. It states, “Construction and demolition debris includes waste and recyclables generated from construction and from the renovation, demolition, or deconstruction of preexisting structures. It does not include land-clearing debris, such as soil, vegetation, and rocks.” My take on your situation is that the concrete slab and foundations are part of preexisting structures and therefore, you would count as demolition waste – not land-clearing debris – as part of your MRc2 calculations.

Your Arabic receipt question sounds like one for GBCI to advise on.
Regarding the estimating of waste, it has historically not been allowed by GBCI. You might want to check out historic public CIRs which I understand do not apply to LEED v3 projects, however they do provide insight into the credit intent. The public MRc2 CIR of 1/29/09 is very clear about requiring actual vs. estimated weights or volumes.

Tobie:
Your instincts are right-on but for now, MRc2 still allows gyp and other materials as “alternate daily cover” which counts towards diverted landfill material. I understand that you have a C&S v2009 question and that public CIRs do not apply to v2009 projects, however, this position on alternate daily cover is still the rule for v2009 as I understand it. LEED 2012 will likely change that to disallow ADC which I for one will be happy to see go. If you want to be absolutely sure this still applies to your v2009 project you can always submit a CIR. Refer to USGBC CIR 8/2/08 below:
8/2/2008 - Ruling
The project is inquiring whether the intent of MRc2 is met when project materials are used as alternative daily coverAlternative daily cover is material (other than earthen material) that is placed on the surface of the active face of a municipal solid waste landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. (ADC) at a landfill. Any construction debris processed into a recycled content commodity which has an open market value – e.g. alternative daily cover material, etc. – may be applied to the construction waste calculation.

Valerie,

Can you perhaps be persuaded to take another look at ADC and what the options might be? Keep in mind, EPA requires landfills to cover their garbage with 6 inches of some kind of cover every night. Prior to ADC this cover was uncontaminated soil, which, by the mere fact that it was applied to the landfill, immediately became contaminated. We run a MRF where we are able to use screens to catch the fines and small bits of detritus that would indeed go to the landfill anyway. The difference is that they would go as garbage with no useful purpose except to fill space. As ADC they fulfill a Federal Requirement, designed to guard against odor and vermin.

Here in Oregon, we are regulated very tightly by the state Department of Environment Quality who require the generator of the material to submit samples of the proposed ADC, and then they monitor a 12 month test with the landfill operator before they give full authority to continue using the material. Each ADC has to be approved as to the generator and the recipient and is not transferable.

Please don't punish a legitimate use of an otherwise scrap material just because of anecdotal stories about poor operators. How about a specification and definition for legitimate use of the product? I am sure that there are plenty of examples that could be looked at.

Eric, it sounds like with your interest in this topic you might want to consider getting more involved at a committee level with USGBC.
No need to worry about my views on ADC. We are only 1 member company and vote with USGBC regarding future rating system changes.

David:
Don’t forget to identify the type of construction or demo material that is headed for recycling or the landfill, using categories like Concrete or Wood etc. Be sure the name of the business and contact info is on the receipts too for the hauler or end user. Keep in mind that the receipts, invoices, and loading tickets that you are requesting and compiling will be for your LEED records and compliance tracking. Only comingledA process of recycling materials that allows consumers to dispose of various materials (such as paper, cardboard, plastic, and metal) in one container that is separate from waste. The recyclable materials are not sorted until they are collected and brought to a sorting facility. waste requires “proof” to be provided to GBCI in the submittal documents, which your area may or may not have as an option. That said, GBCI could ask for your backup documentation if they felt it necessary so hang on to your receipts.
Has the Construction Waste Management Plan been written yet for the project? Sharing it with your local enterprises will also help to communicate what your project waste goals are and how you will go about achieving them with their help.
We like to take photos of the more interesting solutions for waste diversion, such as donation as you mentioned, and it becomes part of project’s green story. Rigid roof insulation cut-outs for skylights on one project became an insulated wine cellar for one worker. Metal siding scrap on another project turned into a small horse barn elsewhere.

Valerie, in the example you gave with the wine cellar, how would you count those for credit compliance? Did you measure it and then calculated it weight?

I was thinking about donating some gypsum board to a local church for some construction they are doing, but how would you prove that to the USGBC since you need to include the weight/volume calculations and they will provide no receipt?

David – for the donated materials calculation, I try to always make sure the project will earn the credit threshold goal if for any reason these materials get denied. In other words, make sure the donated materials don’t make the difference between earning the point or points you absolutely need to achieve.
That said, in the case of the rigid insulation for the wine cellar, we obtained the manufacture’s weight figure per full sheet from the product literature. Each of the 35-40 skylight cut-outs were exactly the same size. We calculated how many full sheets we had in cut-out portions and multiplied it by the weight per sheet. We then took photos of the truck loaded up and got a signed statement from the recipient. That was for a v2.2 project. Since we were not audited on this credit, this backup documentation was never seen by USGBC, so I can’t say that this method was formally accepted. But it was the project team’s attempt to meet the credit intent and to practice creative sustainable strategies.

It all makes sense, I was thinking about a signed statement too and somehow calculate the weight by using volume or area depending on the donated material. Thank you very much for sharing this Valerie.

George, for purposes of MRc2, the credit requires only diverting and tracking waste from the project site itself. You asked about your Construction Waste Management Plan, which does not have to address waste produced off-site, however, if your company wants to encourage responsible waste management from your vendors beyond the credit requirements, you can voluntarily opt to include it in your CWM plan. Just be sure any off-site waste figures are not factored into your LEED credit form tabulations.

Thanks Valerie! That was helpful!

Under normal circumstances, monthly reports from sorting facilities showing average diversion rates are acceptable.

However in this case it appears that you would have to gloss over some things to justify using the 67% rate.

I don't see how it could be justified—do you?

I see it both ways. I also know that our project will have large amounts of concrete and asphalt, so our project specific diversion rate is likely to be much higher than the facilites average. But, the facility will not provide a diversion rate for our project - the facility just does not support this. I wonder how many other facilites include land clearing debris in their calcs and how often this goes unnoticed.

I have personally toured two "transfer stations" or "sorting facilities" here in Pgh, PA. We are seeing many projects embrace this easy alternative to on site sorting. Here's the facts: a container leaves your job. Gets weighed in, dumped on sorting floor and weighed out. Now you have a gross weight. Some level of sorting begins, there are no standards, perhaps they just get the good, easy stuff and dump the rest. Or if they are busy, even less sorting is done. The sorted materials get mixed in with all the other previous sorted loads, etc; there is no "re-weighing" of the wood or drywall, etc. just a visual estimate by a staff member. We typically see 4-5 categories on the load ticket, one being landfill, these should add up to 100%. My point is there is very little precision and no effective "watchdog" so be on the lookout for fudged #s!! I think LEED should require a rigorous vetting of these facilities and demand more accountability.

Good points Mark and Tom. I get the impression that in this next wave of LEED building projects and associated services, that the level of “caring” about the sustainable effort actually being successful may be dwindling in some markets. As there are more mandates for LEED buildings, design and construction teams may not have the same motivation or buy-in from the top to drive the commitment in a meaningful way. That said, I can guess that there are services out there that are willing to sign off on LEED forms and data just to move it off the desk and promote how terrific they are. I have seen it.

So in answer to your question Mark, I do imagine that there are off-site recovery facility companies who either don’t look carefully enough at the LEED requirements, or perhaps may not even care enough. If you make the adjustment yourself to omit their land-clearing debris, you can guess that the next guy probably won’t be that conscientious.

Do you have any other options Mark for the waste recycling? On-site? Another off-site facility? Can you bring at least the land-clearing debris issue to the attention of the current company so they can tool up to improve their ‘real’ diversion rates for LEED? If that company can only deliver 31% for LEED projects seeking 50-95%, then they have not really provided the service the market needs. Looks like an opportunity to me.

Rand, we just added a CWM tracking sheet to our MRc2 Documentation Toolkit. Let us know what you think.

Hi Tristan,

The CWM tracking sheet is very useful, and I was wondering if you are able to provide the password to unlock the spreadsheet so that additional months can be added to the template.

Many Thanks,
Anita

Hi Tristan,

About the CWM tracking sheet, are the tons used "long tons", "short tons" or "metric tons"?

Thank you!

PS. I also would like to have an unprotected spreadsheet so I can translate it to spanish and add more densities, but I understand if you can't provide such thing.

Rubén, I can offer my opinion on the CWM tracking sheet, however I did not create it. The tons are likely to be calculating in a typical US ton (2,000 lbs.) which may also be known as a “short ton” from what I have read.
Tristan will need to respond to your question regarding the unprotected spreadsheet.

Thank you Valerie! I thougt so too...

And regarding the unprotected spreadsheet, I already created one of my own, so thank you anyway!