EBOM 2009 MRc1: Sustainable Purchasing—Ongoing Consumables

Unfortunately unless the residential can be 'separated' from the rest of the structure you will need to complete LEED EB v3 for the complete building. Separation 'could' take place because the residential is a separate segment to the side of the main structure or because it sits on top. However Vertically Attached Buildings and separate structures are covered in MPR's where you will find specific requirements of how to designate 'separate'.
Try: www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=7177
And search this website, LEED User, for guidance

Thank you for the quick reply. The building is able to be vertically separated. But that was not what I was specifically asking, if we do choose to certify the entire building as one, is there any way to exclude the residential areas from tracking?

"......if we do chose to certify the entire building as one"....then everything must be included. That is why we chose to make the specifics of vertical separation so detailed. Sounds like from your post that you can separate out the residential and that sounds the best course.

Thanks for your help.

Yes, I would definitely say that the soy content in inks would meet the rapidly renewableTerm describing a natural material that is grown and harvested on a relatively short-rotation cycle (defined by the LEED rating system to be ten years or less). definition. I would check what percentage of the ink is actual soy content. (And I'm curious what the answer is if you find out.)

Jason, toilet tissue is addressed specifically in IEQc3.3 and cannot be documented in MR. The reference guide indicates that recycled content and the manufacturing of toilet tissue are the important issues here. The criteria for the tissue to meet are the EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines, Green Seal GS-01 (both of which address minimum recycled content of the paper), or Environmental Choice CCD-028, which addresses the methods and chemicals used in the manufacturing and processing of the tissue. Another requirement for the product to be certified to the Environmental Choice standard is "use only pulp derived from forests that may be demonstrated to be managed under a corporate code of sustainable forest practices." Perhaps your tissue paper has multiple certifications?

Well you could try Emily but I doubt it will fly. Also you can't double count by adding it to MRc1 and then again in MRc2...but I do have to say it sounds a great idea.

In an average building we would normally write down each item and provide the backup documentation to show that the purchase meets the requirements of LEED, however in your case start with the suppliers. Have them take the 90 days of purchases and lump the together (example would be copy paper, while the sports arena may well be taking a 2 tonne delivery of copy paper every third day have the supplier corrallate the purchases for the 90 days...that could be 20 tonnes of type x paper delivered, type x paper satisfies the LEED requirements, etc, etc...I know Office Depot will do this as I am sure Staples and others will)
However to get the % numbers required for LEED then you will have to show all the non-compliant numbers as well. As to the food question...really you will have to show all the food purchases, those that meet the requirements and those that don't...again try the suppliers (but is it REALLY worth for one point to do all of that..the cost benefit ratio doesn't compute!!!) You have taken on a major job with this arena...good luck

Food. Are you able to exactly quantify the food items that get created in the hotel and used in the convention centre, against those that get created in the hotel and used in the hotel through out the performance period and be able to prove that with sufficient documentation to satisfy the GBCI??? About the only way I can see that working is if the catering department in the hotel was 100% LEED compliant....provable. (This is a tremendous amount of work for one point)

Austin, I think one of the purposes of LEED is to make a positive influence in just this kind of situation. Ideally there is an organizational commitment to LEED and sustainability, and that commitment comes to bear on contract decisions like this one.

I think the best solution is to renegotiate the contract. Staples sells plenty of cost-effective recycled-content paper.

Short of that, you can elect not to pursue this credit or you can rely on other purchases to hit your threshold.

LEED CI, when applied in office situations does not require tracking user purchases ( or at least we haven't been dinged for it). EB and CI are focused on building/space operations not the actions of individuals. Must an auto plant track the steel in all the vehicles being made? It's all pass-thru, not fundamental to building operations. Must you track thehe recycled fabric in the children's clothing in a school project? I suggest the following questions to ask:
1. Is the material in question fundamental to building operations?
2. Is the material purchased by the building operator or for the building operators? e.g. vendor purchased paper towels should be counted

e.g. A factory manufactures fluorescent lamp fixtures, and uses similar fixtures to light the factory floor. Here I think one tracks the product used to light the factory floor, not the product produced.

A company with 27 facilities throughout the country does central purchasing. The foods are allocated to locations upon request -- very difficult to track. Assuming all facilities are similar -- all office facilities, can we prorate based on square footage?

A great question Kevin, and one USGBC/GBCI has not firmly answered to date. Your situation is similar to a campus environment, where purchasing is spread over multiple buildings. Current guidance suggests that purchasing must be tracked on a building-specific basis for compliance, but it is not definitive on that subject. Your choices are either to submit for a formal interpretation on the subject or to submit your company-wide data and make your case. I can imagine compelling arguments on either side of this one, particularly as your facilities are distributed nationally. One thought I have is that I wonder if it is more logical to prorate food purchases based on a per occupant basis rather than square footage? Sorry I can't offer more certainty on this one - you are among a large group of folks hoping for more clarity on this kind of issue.

Dan

You might try looking into FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts. certified wide-format paper:
http://www.fscus.org/paper/
and use the link to find the lists of certified papers and manufacturers. Some of these have recycled content as well. There can be a fuzzy area between products that aren't "available" or "known to be available." In some markets, we've seen printing companies competing with each other to be more "sustainable" by providing wide-format recycled paper, FSC paper, picking up used tubes, cartridges, etc.

Since one of the main goals of LEED is market transformation, they're unlikely to grant an exception based on a vendor's claim it's not available, but that does but some of the burden on individual project teams to push for things like this. That's one way a local chapter of the USGBC or a local LEED user group can be very helpful - putting out the call for a particular product and showing there's real demand for it.

Samantha, I am curious about this issue, but I don't see what you're seeing. Can you be more specific about where you're seeing this? What is the number associated with the upload?

When submitting a project on LEED online, in the MRc1 file uploads tab, it is the 3rd upload option out of the list of four on that page. Two above it are optional and the upload below it is for product documentation. There is no number associated with the upload which is why I'm a little confused about it as well.

Samantha, I am confused... I only see one upload under MRc1 (see image below). Is it possible you're looking at a "Beta" page?

Geoffrey, I would say the answers to your questions are

1) Yes.

2) No, there could be much variation.

3) Yes.

I'd appreciate input from others here.

1). Agreed.

2). Agreed.

3). Definitely. For both 1 and 3 the key is that the manufacturer has made a public and official statement of product performance. Although a published brochure of some kind is fantastic, a signed letter or screen capture from the company website will always suffice.

Ted, I would say that this printing is outside the scope of this credit. It seems to fall more under the business activity of the department, and is not related to the building. If the paper is used within the building, then it would be coverede on the waste side, but I don't see a need to cover it on the purchasing side.

I'm contemplating your response. If there is a separation in business activity, wouldn't all office supplies used by the department then be classified under "business activity"? I'm trying to understand the delineation between this type of consumable and others. In other words, what would then be attributed just to "the building"?

Ted, I think I would need more specific examples to be able to offer more thoughts. Also, my thoughts on the flyers are a bit of an educated guess—I'm unclear how the flyers are consumed by the department.

As you can gather from reading earlier discussions on this topic, there is some grey area here.

Interesting question Ted - I would agree with Tristan. What you are purchasing, in this instance, is a finished printed product, rather than simply the 'ongoing consumable' portion of that product, the paper. One might argue its similar to buying a newspaper or magazine in that sense. But it is certainly a gray area, I agree. One other thought - if you are purchasing a large volume of printed materials, and you could switch to sustainable paper, I wonder if an Innovation Credit might be entertained? Longshot but interesting. . .

Dan

Very good question - we are working on an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. project for our own building, an AEC firm with lots of printing of project plans, marketing proposals, etc. We use a third-party printing service to manage our equipment and coordinate our large print jobs (full-size drawing sets) and I always took the stance that since we are paying them to do our printing for us (and they are in fact located inside our building), we have the ability to recommend they use sustainable paper - just like we pay our housekeeping staff to use green cleaning products.

Thanks everyone for your input. It has been very helpful in gaining perspective on this one. I plan to work out a stance with my client that will sit well with them. My guess is they will claim the paper volume under purchasing, and we'll get documentation from the printing press on type of paper used during performance period. Obviously, we'll eventually know whether or not it is an acceptable claim with USGBC, right? :-) Thanks again all.

Kevin, see the example in the discussion above about an aquarium.

Also, this discussion on purchases made within the building but not for the building.

Keep in mind that these credits are intended to be fairly inclusive—food for example is not about the "operation" of a building but has a lot to do with the impact of its activities.

With your examples, I would count the tack cloths and lab materials but not the wood purchases.

This is a good question, Jessica. The guidelines for campus scenarios are a little confusing. However, you should proceed with the assumption that you will only be able to claim a purchase if it is intended for use at a specific project building. If you have a portfolio of buildings on a campus that are all seeking certification, there are some credits and prerequisites for which you will be allowed to demonstrate campus-wide compliance. However, all of the purchasing credits (including IEQc3.3) will require that you illustrate compliance at the level of each individual building. So, in your case, where there is a centralized purchasing office, this is how you should approach this:
1) If the admin office buys something in bulk that is then actually used at each of the buildings on the campus, you can divide up that purchase using some type of pro-rated approach. For example, let's say each building has a common area with a coffee maker and one of the perks of living there is that the property manager provides free coffee to tenants. If the admin office bought $500 worth of organic coffee during the performance period, each building could claim $100 worth of coffee.
2) If the admin office buys something that is specifically intended to be used only by personnel in that office, those purchases cannot be shared out across the campus. For example, let's say that the admin office has a number of printers and copiers, but none of the other buildings have any sort of common space that is intended for use as a business center for tenants or property management staff. If the admin office buys $500 worth of paper during the performance period, the only building that could claim that purchase is the building that actually houses the admin office.

Now, If the property manager offered another perk by installing a computer and printer in each building's lobby for free tenant use, the situation would be very different. In that alternate example, the $500 worth of paper that was purchased by the central admin office could be divided up across each of the buildings on the campus.

The key thing to remember is that the EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. rating system is requiring you to:
a) document actual performance,
b) during the performance period,
c) inside your LEED project boundary.

The last part is the key item in a campus scenario; for the purposes of any purchasing credit, each building on the campus will have its own distinct LEED project boundary.

Jason,

Thanks for the response. I do have several follow up questions though as well as some issues with the interpretation of how LEED defines this issue (keeping in mind that there is little guidance from USGBC, and what little guidance there is tends to be confusing and often contradictory).

My first comment is that it seems with the interpretation you have listed that the intent of the purchasing credits is backwards. LEED is suppose to give credit to practices that are environmentally friendly. In this case, it appears that the way to achieve the LEED credits would be to start buying a set of products for each of the individual buildings (ex. coffee makers, printers, etc.). This seems contradictory, because buying these products is consuming more than is currently being used. Having individual products in each building means more energy usage, more natural resource usage, etc and would be somewhat wasteful. I feel we should be rewarded in the LEED system for efficient usage of materials and resources by centralizing all of these products in one office space. All of this is part of the issue I see with LEED rewarding projects for more purchases. It almost encourages consumption (which to me is one of the biggest problems facing our society today).

The next comment I have is that the USGBC has ruled that in a campus setting there are many credits that are able to be "shared" or credits can be achieved even though the physical objects or amenities aren't within the specific LEED boundary (such as parking spaces, showers, stormwater management, etc.). So why should purchasing be any different? This is an example of the contradiction within the LEED rating systems. I understand the intent of requiring things to be within the LEED boundary, but there are always exceptions, and in a campus setting, this is one case it seems unreasonable to require all purchases to be used within the LEED project boundary.

One example of a product that should count even if purchased outside the LEED boundary is office paper. The way I read your interpretation, it seems that unless the printer is housed in the building of the specific LEED project in reference, the paper purchases shouldn't count for LEED purposes. But just because the paper is printed in the office, doesn't mean that it isn't actually physically used in the other buildings. This paper is very frequently used for things like tenant notices, etc. within each of the buildings. So for these types of products it seems reasonable to allocate percentages to each building (even though the printer and office equipment is in only 1 building).

I realize that there is not much guidance for LEED EB for Multi Family at this point (as we have discovered throughout the certification process), but it would be nice to see some guidance, and guidance that is in line with the intent of LEED and consistent with other rating systems and interpretations. I realize that LEED EB is different in that it is actual performance during the performance period, but there should still be some consistency between EB and other LEED Rating Systems when appropriate.

I would appreciate your thoughts on my comments when you have a chance.

Thanks for your time.

Jessica - You've asked some great questions and in the process illuminated a number of issues that I know USGBC is also working on/struggling with right now. Your particular project is a neat intersection of two scenarios that challenge EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.: residential and campus. Either one has a number of unknowns; in combination you are definitely out there on the cutting edge.

Jason's response is, in my eyes, spot on. He has helpfully illustrated the flexibility that the USGBC is trying to maintain to allow for variability in building situations that necessarily differ among campuses. I will try to address your follow up points:

1. On the issue of consumption, I think you'll find that everyone at USGBC is aligned with your concern about encouraging consumption. That being said, there is simply no functional way for this tool to measure a 'lack' of consumption. Past versions of EB attempted to encompass source reduction but it quickly became clear that a project could claim to have 'source reduced' tons of material with no documentation. The USGBC's reach can only encompass guiding existing purchasing; they have to assume that the profit motive will limit unnecessary purchases beyond what is required for normal operations.

2. USGBC's fundamental orientation is the certification of individual buildings. The rating systems were not designed for campuses, firms, etc... (LEED-ND being the obvious exception). For this reason, the default position of the USGBC is that data should represent building-level performance. When doing so is somehow inadequate, inaccurate, or misrepresentative of actual circumstances (irrigation, stormwater management, and similar credits being the obvious examples), the USGBC has made formal exception to that default position. I am of the opinion that this exception should be extended to additional credits in a campus setting, particularly alternative transportation and waste diversion. But until the USGBC formally agrees, reasonable people are left to happily debate which credits should or should not be considered campus-wide vs individual building, while knowing that the USGBC starting point is building-specific data. Purchasing is a tough one on both sides of this debate, but I hope its helpful to understand the USGBC's starting point, at least philosophically.

3. Finally, to your example, I would encourage you to assume that the USGBC is less interested in drawing hard & firm lines and more interested in behavior/performance consistent with the credit intent. You have a great deal of flexibility in explaining to the reviewer how purchased materials are used in the project building, and why that use is reasonable for inclusion. The USGBC can't anticipate every permutation of materials use that takes place in a campus environment - its incumbent on projects to help the USGBC understand their practices and how those practices are consistent with the credit intent. I don't think a reviewer would have any problem with the inclusion of some $ amount for paper to each building in the example you provide (as long as it wasn't double-counted between the two buildings!).

Hope that's at least a little helpful.

Dan

Yes, I believe so.

Hi Tristan,
this link me to another question. i saw a comment on NCv2.2, MRC6 dated Jun 29 2010. the discussion stated that, a study made by USGBC that, no tree species meet the 10 years renewal criteria.
is there a web page whereby list of rapid renewable resources was stated and user refer to it?
Farmed trees was meant for sustainable production, through USGBC study no tree species meet renewal criteria, i not sure with our approach about farmed trees will be ok.

Quoting a recent MRc6 discussion:

There is no official list. Any biobasedGenerally, classification of products and materials derived from plant and animal sources as opposed to minerals. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a program to promote the use of emerging biobased products that defines them more narrowly, to exclude products that already have established markets, such as food, animal feed, and lumber.  material that otherwise meets the requirements should be accepted. If you can get formal documentation from your supplier about the less-than-10-years cycle, than you should be OK.

When the rules were written, 10 years was picked in part to exclude any wood products, since those are covered separately under Credit 7. But that's not how the requirement was written.

Yes, any FSCIndependent, third-party verification that forest products are produced and sold based on a set of criteria for forest management and chain-of-custody controls developed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international nonprofit organization. FSC criteria for certifying forests around the world address forest management, legal issues, indigenous rights, labor rights, multiple benefits, and environmental impacts.-certified product at 50% or better qualifies for the credit.

Wendy, that's a good question; the Reference Guide really isn't clear on its handling of remanufactured toner cartridges. You're correct in assuming that they wouldn't be counted as "re-used", but there's also an avoided cost if you're engaging in similar activities, such as refilling printer ink cartridges. I don't have a good answer for you at this time, but we'll look into it.

Hello,
Any answer to the category under which the re manufactured toner cartridges fall under? Are they under the regional material manufactured or extracted within 500 miles category?

Thanks

Rashmi, I think you could make a case for them if they are remanufacturered, contain recycled content, or are regionally produced.

Tim, USGBC is actively working on this but there is no change at this point. LEEDuser is tracking this issue and we'll announce it in our e-news when a change comes through.

This is not an uncommon situation and my experience has been that reviewers are comfortable if projects input summary data into the template (using averages or whatever aggregated data is necessary to make the template come up with the right outcome) as long as a complete spreadsheet is provided which a) mimics the template format and content closely and b) is formatted to allow the reviewer to confirm formulas (that is, not a PDF document). I don't think anyone benefits from an insistence on massive data transfers from your spreadsheet to the template, as long as the spreadsheet can be thoroughly reviewed.

For LEED purposes, paints and sealants are considered base building materials, so you would track purchases under MRc3, Facility Alterations and Additions. Paint is definitely not considered an ongoing consumable.

You actually have to check off a box on the leedonline form for IEQc3.3 that states "The purchases included in the total above were omitted from any calculations for MRc1, MRc2.1, MRc2.2 or (no double-counting). Alternatively, the project team has not pursued MRc1, MRc2.1, MRc2.2."
I'm sure it would be the same for IEQc3.4.

Tyler, you absolutely need tenant involvement for these credits. The credits cover all purchasing within the building.

There is some advice in our guidance above about how to succeed in multi-tenant situations. I also recommend watching this video—LEED-EBOM: Eight Steps to Success—for additional tips.

I agree with your conclusion Marian - It doesn't seem logical to include products that are so 'process'-specific to your building's unique function, and for which the sustainability criteria identified in the rating system & reference guide are not relevant. I think you can probably exclude them in purchasing, although you may have to address them in waste. Also, I would note that you might consider fish food in light of the Sustainable Foods credit, which doesn't technically limit itself to food for human consumption!

These are good questions, Wendy. The key thing is that for any of the purchasing credits, you are required to track all purchases made during the performance period and then highlight those specific purchases which meet one or more of the LEED sustainability criteria.

It's important to understand the LEED definitions of "Ongoing ConsumablesOngoing 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." and "Durable GoodsDurable 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." as well. Ongoing Consumables are products with a low cost per unit that are regularly used and replaced through the course of business. The LEEDUser Bird's Eye View for this credit does not mean to suggest that it is optional to track items other than paper, toner, binders, etc.; these are simply the basic categories of ongoing consumables that must be tracked at a minimum. There are many other types of ongoing consumables that are used on a regular basis in most commercial buildings that should be included in your tracking.

Durable Goods are products that are available at a higher cost per unit and that are replaced infrequently and/or may require capital outlays. The simplest way to think about these types of products is to examine purchases of electronic equipment (including appliances) and furniture.

So, to address your specific questions above:
1) items such as treadmills, keyboards, computer mouse, and speakers would fall under the Durable Goods category because they are electronic equipment with a higher cost
2) items such as first aid kits, periodicals, wrist pads, and keyboard trays could probably be considered Ongoing Consumables because they are low-cost items. Batteries are also considered ongoing consumables for LEED purposes.
3) "SWAG and gifts" is a bit trickier - ideally, the purchases you're tracking for these LEED credits are items that are being purchased for use within your project building. If you're buying items for clients, you can probably exclude them; likewise, if you're receiving these items from clients or trade shows, they are not being purchased by the project team, so they may also be excluded.

In a nutshell, make sure you're tracking all items that are purchased by building management or staff that are intended for use in the project building during the performance period. Make sure you understand the sustainability criteria and use a consistent methodology to report all the products that meet those criteria .

Jason - Thanks for clarifying these questions. It seems so simple on the surface and then you get into the detail and things begin to blur. One quick question for clarification, if we purchase SWAG or brochures that will be distrbuted outside the building such as a tradeshow or be given to a different department in a different building (but the purchaseing department is in the project building) can I assume these count as well? From your answer that appears be the case.

Thanks again!

This is a known problem with this, and other, version 3 credit forms. It is definitely not the intent of USGBC to limit you to only 10 purchase types throughout your performance period. Project teams have been handling this in one of two ways:
1) If your purchases can be grouped by type (printer paper, toner, notebooks, etc.) see if you can aggregate them into 10 or fewer line items and provide a date range for the Purchase Date that encompasses the entire performance period.
2) If you cannot group your purchases in this way, provide an excel sheet that lists all purchases and all required data that is requested in the credit form. This should be viewed as a temporary solution; as a general rule, the Review Teams do not accept custom calculators, but are currently making an exception for these types of known credit form issues. Make sure to include some type of narrative stating that the Credit Form does not have enough rows to list all of your purchases.