Ryan...Ok this sounds a bit of a mess so let's break it down. First why are the custodial bagging it separate and then throwing it all in the trash bin. Step one. Audit the waste stream. This is almost being done for you as the 'once a week custodial' are separating the recycles and the trash....so you would seem to have only a small load to sort through. The results will be a list of all the items in the TOTAL stream, sub divided into recycles, trash, compostables, etc. Now comes the difficult bit. To gain the credit all the recycles must be recycled, but where? Options could be that they are seperately hauled by 'someone' and a 'report', weigh ticket, cash receipt provided as evidence. (Sounds basic, but that may be the only answer). Exactly how big a problem is this?

LEEDUSERS
Subsequent to the above, Ryan and I had a side bar, which, if you plough through the following, saved Ryan $800. Ryan agreed that I download this all for your delectation:

Barry

Thanks for taking a minute to respond to my question on LEED User. Let me try and clarify my problem.

We currently have separate bins for all of our trash and recyclables throughout our building. The cleaning staff then collects and bags the trash and recyclables separately. All of the bags are then thrown into one large dumpster. These dumpsters are then collected and separated off site into recyclables and non-recyclables by our trash haulers. 100% of recyclable content gets recycled because there is no way for someone to put a bottle in the waste bin by accident. The only reason we bag garbage separately is so the garbage does not contaminate the paper for recycling. I just don’t know how to quantify how much recycling vs. garbage we produce unless we have the cleaning staff bag the garbage and recycling separately and then I quantify the volumes myself at the end of the week.

I hope this is clearer. I really would like to figure out how to get this credit.

Thanks again, Ryan

Ryan
Here's a suggestion. Can you get the waste hauler to produce numbers (Verifiable numbers) of their recycle %? (It's not 100%...probably nearer 60%).

You'll need to use your separate bin method to show how much % you're doing in the building and complete a waste audit on the total stream to see what you're missing in the recycle.
Now comes the problem, you're waste hauler will get, as I think, about 60%. The waste audit will show that you have the potential to recycle, say 85% and your separate bin method will show that you are currently managing 70%.

The GBCI will then ask...'how are you going to close the gap?...and it's a valid question. Even the 'requirements' of MR6 ask..."...Identify opportunities for increased recycling and waste diversion". So you'll need to come up with a provable plan to do so...enact it and prove it within the performance period

Regards, Barry

Barry
Thank you for your prompt reply. I think I can get this to work out.

Its this weird "unicycling" bin we have, i'm trying to parse out all the details. We can get separate bins, but it might cost more. I am working on that now. I will let you know what I come up with.
Cheers, Ryan
Barry

With your suggestion in mind, I called our waste hauler and found our unicycling bin has a diversion rate of about 30%! Terrible. I called up and switched our service to two smaller bins, one for garbage and one for recycling. This will allow us to monitor how much we recycle by volume, and as an added bonus is going to save the company $800 a year.

Thanks for the insight, Ryan

Edward. You'll still need to undertake a full audit. There is always a little confusion between the prereqs and credits. What you're calling the 75% diversion is in fact for the on-going credit and will need to be tracked constantly to maintain that credit over a period. Provided you can gain a good report from the hauler that stands GBCI investigation then you're good to go. The audit is different. Here you'll need to work out what is in the total waste stream leaving the building...both trash and recycle and quantify both. The point of the audit is to help you quantify all the possible items that could be recycled, composted, etc...and/or give you kudos for the great job that's already being done. So gloves on..and jump in.

Myria, although I've seen these units in action I've not placed them into the EB program. The basics of LEED EB require ‘safe handling’ and ‘compliant disposal’.

Obviously all building operator know how to handle mercury containing fixtures (or at least they should) and different jurisdictions require various methods for safe disposal (check with the local waste disposal website in your area)..However, if we take California as being the ‘market leader’ then this extract from their website covers the minimum for handling:

All fluorescent lamps and tubes must be recycled, or taken to a household hazardous waste disposal facility, a universal waste handler (e.g., storage facility or broker), or an authorized recycling facility. (Title 22, division 4.5, chapter 23, section 66273.8

But this following note is important:

Note: Operating a fluorescent lamp/tube crusher in California would be considered hazardous waste treatment. Operating a fluorescent lamp crusher in California would require a "standardized permit" from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Contact the DTSC office near you for more information on standardized treatment permits before you invest in a fluorescent lamp crusher.

So from these two I would approach the ‘crusher’ company and get details from them as to the ‘safety aspects’ of their equipment, codes and standards that they adhere to and full specs of the unit and any ‘standardized permits’
Second. Then what happens to the contents of the bin once it is full…where does it go, standards of disposal, weigh bills are very important, etc etc. With that all written out and a few photos you should be good for upload to the relevant credits.

Barry, many thanks for this perspective. Although I don't want to promote a given product per se, it seems a good idea to see if the company has done the legwork to get their product evaluated under LEED as my clients are using or considering this item in particular. As always, the 'chain of custody' and documentation for the process are important so I will follow up as you recommend with our provincial hazardous regulations.

Design Alaska, I apologize for the delay in addressing this. I am still working on it.

Thank you, Tristan. I'm sure you've been busy preparing for, and recovering from, Greenbuild.

The tracking sheet now posted above is unlocked.

As far as the drop-down menus, I don't know what you mean. There aren't drop-down menus.

Thank you very much, Tristan.
There are two columns that have drop-down menus ("Diverted from Landfill?" and "Diversion Method"). The drop-down menus are empty, however, so nothing can be selected.
Now that the spreadsheet is unlocked, I can fix it for my use, but it may be helpful to others to either clear the data validation (drop-down menu), or to fill in the drop-down with appropriate options (recycled, donated, internal reuse, composted, other, etc.). Thank you again for providing this resource.

Elizabeth, if you have no way of diverting food waste, then this will simply be part of the waste stream that doesn't count toward your credit compliance.

I would guess that if you're contributing to the wastewater you're producing then it would not meet the intent of this credit. Why not compost and create a usable product as the outcome?

Another factor is the load that food waste puts on the wastewater treatment facility. Composting would be great and there are a lot options you can do. There maybe a community garden that would like your food scraps, a composter on site could provide compost to employees or even farmers. I do want to encourage your project. The EPA has statistics that show food waste is around 14% of the US's solid waste.

Great photo, by the way.

I don't think this would fly either, because a) there's no useful product at they end as their would be with recycling or composting as Emily notes, b) it seems a little unlikely to me that there wouldn't be a water quality issue - what about nutrient loading from pushing all that added organic matter into the wastewater system -what water quality tests were performed, and c) other than not taking up land area, it's unclear that this strategy is less energy, pollution, water intensive then sending waste to landfill (e.g., does this produce methane?).

Lets look at basics, if you are recycling then thank you, and I know sometimes these actions aren't that easy to quantify especially over a longer period. Like most of the LEED credits 'provable actions' speak loudly. Now I'm assuming that your recycling to some central 'point'....a vendor perhaps. Is there any chance of getting a reply from them accepting your recycled cartridges....if not at least track yourself how many cartridges you are sending and to what address. (Perhaps start looking for a vendor who will be able to reply to you...as this piece of paper will work wonders with the GBCI)
Of course I'm thinking that you have more than 3 cartridges to recycle (Staples do a 'buy back' and issue a receipt for the 3 a day you take in). Failing both of those I would: 1. Track every cartridge, date and address sent to and/or 2. find a vendor to work with you (Vendor could be a donation place...school for example). I hope that this helps.

Thank You Very Much for your quick response. The problem we are running into is, that roughly 35-40% of our purchases are these ink cartridges. On the spreadhseet tracking our purchases, they are not meeting any of the criteria, but we do recycle them. Is there a way to account for this, to improve our percentage in the 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. category?

Wow, what are your guys printing...War and Peace each day??. OK, If you have no vendor recycling reports of any sort (and please check that there is nowhere where you can recycle and get a document of some sort) then you will have to count (by weight or volume) to your best method possible (and I would include lots of photos) and provide this to the USGBC (by filling in the form with the total amount...weight or volume...that you have recycled in the performance period) The term the USGBC use is "hauler reports or similar RELIABLE data". Explain clearly in supporting narratives why you have no 'hauler reports' and indicate what methodology that you chose to prove that your data is reliable and to the absolute best knowledge, where all these ink cartridges are ending up. (Think of it as closing the loop) Add in copies of the boxes that the original cartridges came in that show that they can be recycled and that the boxes contain details of recycling methodologies (and of course you are using one of these methodologies) Add log details of how they are collected and how and where you store them prior to bulking them up for posting or whichever method you are using (FedEx, UPS, etc)
I suggest that you contact the manufacturers and point out that tracking the recycled unit would be of great help to you and to LEED (and those that follow behind you)
Great project...good luck

I don't think that will fly Kristen. LEED allows projects the option of volume or weight because neither metric is really perfect, and because tracking by weight (which seems on balance the better measure) is very difficult for many projects which do not have appropriate scales available. But as you said - the apples to apples comparison doesn't work if you are compacting one of your streams and not the others. LEED is less worried about the actual displacement of air/space resulting from your waste than in the relative amounts of waste vs recycling. So your original assumption was accurate - you should compare your loose recyclable volume vs a calculated loose trash volume. And make sure you clearly document your method for that calculation! Hope that helps,

Dan

That's a tough one Paul - in general the rule is that either weight or volume needs to be measured, particularly because basing your calculations on an assumed fill rate won't allow for useful tracking if/when your program improves or decreases performance (for the shredded paper). I wonder if there is any way to have the hauler perform even a very rough measurement of fullness when they collect? Either a visual check or, if they can't open the bins, some kind of measurement using a yardstick slid into the drop-slot on the top? Short of that, I think the next best thing would be using an assumed fill rate, but one that is generated by actual measurements from a sampling of bins. I have a project that estimated bag weight in this fashion - rather than weighing every bag, they weighed a sample of bags x times per week to produce a multiplier. They updated that multiplier every month to ensure it was reflecting changes in their program. An imperfect solution, but better than pretending that no shredded paper is being diverted! Hope this helps a little.

Dan

Jean, did you review the earlier discussion on this topic? That's a good starting place.

Jean
You've hit on a weak area here..basically do what you want but have method to show the reviewer that you've completed the program. Much of this will come from how much you're disposing of...in a very large complex there are several 'recycling companies' that deal only with batteries (they produce a wonderful report showing all the breakdown of mercury, cadmiumA naturally-occurring element and source of pigments that were once a staple in paints, but now is largely phased out in architectural coatings except for certain specialty products. High exposure to cadmium can cause a variety of health problems, including kidney damage., etc...but of course that type of service costs!). If you are small complex then there may be only a couple of handfulls per month. Bag them and take these to your local recycling centre, they 'may' give you a receipt, but it's doubtful. So in this situation just go ahead and record on the recycling numbers what you consider the correct amount of weight. At the end of the day you really should be commended for at least making the effort to quantify the total. Regards

The minimum performance period for MRc7 is three months; for your submittal, you won't be required to submit any more than that. However, tracking waste/recycling is the kind of thing that is so integral to long-term sustainable operations that your goal should be to create a tracking system that makes it cost-effective to do so over a much longer period. Hope that helps.

I believe that even in the olden days of EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems. v2008, the template encouraged projects to break out materials which were diverted, but did not require it. Because commingled recycling has become even more commonplace since then, many projects have a single number for 'recycled material' that represents all or many of the items listed above. In many instances, however, things like food waste and toner cartridges are collected separate from the commingled waste stream, and therefore a separate figure may be available. But you certainly do need to account for all of the materials listed in either the recycled or conventionally-disposed side of the equation.

Yes and yes Andrew. The intent of LEED is that you establish the tracking program before the performance period and then tracking becomes part of your buildings operating practices for the life of the building. The performance period is merely a sample of that tracking. In terms of metrics, you can vary metrics between credits - the specifics you note are quite common given the nature of OC's and DG's. Good luck with your waste program.

This is a question that lots of folks have struggled with and I can offer some insight, if not a definitive answer. My understanding is that the USGBC/GBCI hasn't provided formal guidance on this issue and maintains the prerogative to determine appropriateness based on the specifics of an individual project. That being said, it is my experience that MRc7 particularly (as well as MRc8 and MRc9) can legitimately be pursued using a campus-wide number. Many of the campuses I work with have this problem - multiple buildings are served on a route, and there is no measurement technology on the trucks to assess the load from a single building. If your campus is relatively small and homogenous (in terms of building type and likely waste) the GBCI is more likely to be sympathetic. On the other hand, an alternative approach (with a higher degree of certainty about GBCI ruling) is to implement your own waste volume tracking protocol - effectively finding a way to have your staff estimate the volume of each material leaving the building before each pickup. We have implemented a similar approach at a number of buildings and after overcoming a bit of bellyaching from the custodial staff who had to look in the dumpsters every day and write down the % fullness, it's worked quite nicely. (Final note: MRc6 is, in contrast to MRc7-9, never earnable on a campus-wide basis. Waste audits must be building-specific.) Hope that helps!

Thanks Dan!

I was wondering for the situation where they had written the % fullness from the dumpster, how did they determine which went to the dump and which was recycled, composted, etc?

Ah, Richard - That's a whole new level of trouble! In our situation, we had occupant material separation so the staff recorded information for the recycling dumpster, the compost bin, and the landfill-directed dumpster separately. If you have only a single bin where ALL facility waste is collected and then sorted off-site, my suggestion isn't going to be helpful and I think you are back to using a campus-wide number. You might consider submitting a CIRCredit Interpretation Ruling. Used by design team members experiencing difficulties in the application of a LEED prerequisite or credit to a project. Typically, difficulties arise when specific issues are not directly addressed by LEED information/guide early in your certification process to confirm that this will be viable, but, unless your building is somehow unique to your campus AND likely to be the worst-performing (and therefore getting its lousy recycling performance masked by the campus-wide figure) I would think you'll find a reasonable response from GBCI.

Absolutely - simply enter them as 'commingled' in the template and note what types of material are included in the commingled collection stream. Note that this flexibility for MRc7 differs from MRc6, in which an EBOMEBOM is an acronym for Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance, one of the LEED 2009 rating sytems.-compliant waste audit requires a more complete sorting of materials to identify missed opportunities.

My question is similar to the one above and the question above about depth of data collection. Since all of our recyclables are commingled can I just say 'Commingled' in the template and note all the materials that are recycled (paper, cardboard, glass, metals, plastics...) since our hauler does not have the ability to measure each trip how much glass, cardboard, paper individually. We receive monthly reports stating pounds recycled vs. pounds landfilled and wanted to know if this would suffice.

In Credit MRc6, we stated all sensitive shredded paper is 100% recycled and landscape waste is 100% recycled onsite, but was not included in our calculations. Is it safe for this credit to not include weights of either again as we do not have a means to measure the weight of landscape material or shredded paper especially since our building is a multiple tenants and we do not want to inconvenience our tenants in weighing their sensitive papers.

That would suffice Paul - for MRc7 the distribution of materials within your recycling stream matters much less than the overall weight/volume of the recycled material. And I think you are safe on landscape waste and shredded paper as long as you exclude them from the calculation completely; to include them you'd need some kind of measurement (many of my clients estimate volumes visually then convert to weight using EPA conversion rates), but if you simply exclude them from the equation with a note that 100% is recycled, you should be fine.

Hi Rachael -

For this credit, all you need to do is track the total amount of waste sent to the landfill and the total amount of waste recycled, composted, etc. You don't need to quantify what percentage of paper or other specific materials go to the landfill for this credit (though you do need to do this to achieve MRc6). Your waste hauler should be able to provide you with information on the total amount of waste, recycling, compost, etc. you produce.

Yep, to comply with the credit requirements, you only need to document the total amount of waste generated during the performance period and then specify the amount of recycling that occurred during the same period. You don't need to provide hauler receipts, but it is a good idea to try to separate out the different types of recycling (i.e. glass, plastic, cardboard, paper, etc.) and note who the hauler was for each type of recycled material. You can easily track the amount of recycled material by using the Waste Management Tracking Sheet for 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. located in the Documentation Toolkit section; if you use this tracking sheet throughout your performance period, it should be a snap to complete the LEED Credit Form and include detailed recycling info.