Guido - I don't have any experience with wood derived fuel. I would encourage you to also look at LI ID #1685 - http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=1685 - for some additional information. This ruling can be applied to LEED v2009 projects even though it was written for LEED-NC v2.0. I think it would be important to consider if the wood fuel is actually a value-added product or part of a value-added process.

If anyone has experience with WDF and can answer Guido’s exact question, please jump in.

Abdulrahman - Your logic for documentation is clear; however, just because the traders picked up the waste does not mean it does get recycled, does it? It could be discarded after they leave the site. I see your challenge to be to prove that the materials the traders actually pick up really get recycled. And the documentation that you suggest would just prove that certain quantities left the jobsite - not that they got recycled. While I am not in the position to say what GBCI reviewers will accept for backup, I would suggest trying to look at the ultimate disposal of the material - which I understand may be difficult. And that you contact GBCI via Contact Us - http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que... - to get direct guidance on the situation.

If anyone has experience with this from an international perspective, please chime in.

Thank you Michelle for your quick reply. The contractor assured that the traders recycle the waste they buy from him for two reasons:
First.. they used to work with him and as a big contractor in the region he knows the traders well and what they do with the scrap.
Second.. the traders pay for all scrap they pick up from the contractor's sites and it is obvious they will never pay for something to discard.
So what only in my hand is to get a confirmation letter from the contractor affirming the final destination of all scrap he sold to his traders. What do you think?

Thanks for these clarifications. Information on the contractor’s experience with the traders would be useful to include in the letter. Including in the letter the contractor affirmation of the final destination of the scrap would make things more similar to the documentation in the U.S. Please know that this is just my professional opinion and GBCI has the final say on what it will accept but I think you are on the right track.

Thank you for your help.
My appreciations.

My experience with commingled is on a per project basis - where the receiver gives us specific diversion percentage based on our project’s actual tonnage/volume. While I can't shed any light on this specific comment, I would suggest contacting GBCI via the contact form (http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que...) and selecting “Questions about Review Comments.” GBCI is encouraging teams to contact them with questions.

Note: A 5/9/2011 addendum added this to page 359 of the first edition of the Reference Guide: “For commingled recycling the average annual recycling rate for a sorting facility is acceptable for recording diversion rates only when the facility's method of recording and calculating the recycling rate is regulated by a local or state government authority.”

Thanks, Michelle. And I thought we had a well developed construction diversion industry in our area in Seattle! I've only encountered one receiver who would actually dump and sort a commingled project load individually, making it basically project specific.

Our receivers dump all commingled loads they receive together and sort them together, resulting in monthly diversion percentages. It's too expensive for them to sort each project load separately. This "specific" percentage is supplied to us in a monthly report for our "specific" project that we then use in the form and supply as backup, but it's a monthly rate for any project that used that receiver for commingled that month.

And thanks I've already been through the Feedback process and this was the "clarifying" comment.

We were denied this credit for the first time ever in part I believe because of this issue and in part because the receiving facility included diversion for biomass that they sold the resulting methane from. Biomass was not deemed acceptable despite the market because it's basically "landfilled". We could not however obtain a definition for how biomass is different from Alternate Daily Cover which is currently allowed in our diversion methodologies. The facility was government regulated, guaranteed at least 50% diversion and its use was actually mandated by the City our project was in.

I would very much like to understand both the commingled issue and the biomass issue for future projects. Since so far I haven't had any luck with GBCI, I thought I'd reach out. Thanks for the response.

I’m sorry I can’t be more help but it is good you presented this information for other teams. It is unfortunate that the clarifying information from GBCI contradicted past experience.

Regarding the local recycler that sorts by load, the company did this because without any local or state regulation for recycling rates they were not able to figure out a way to account for LEED for commingled waste, which is their business model (one bin - no sorting). So they don’t do the separate analysis for all jobs just their LEED ones.

Regarding biomass vs. ADC, the situation seems very similar with ADC being landfilled. I am glad that in LEED v4 they are closing this loophole - http://www.usgbc.org/node/2601031?return=/credits/new-construction/v4-draft.

Thanks Michelle. I agree that biomass does seem very similar to ADC. Hence my confusion about one being okay in LEED 2009 and one not. Though I know v4 will address this, for the next dozen projects we have going through LEED 2009 we're still hoping for some clarity. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and the offered resource.

For those intersted in biomass, I have received some further clarifications. Biomass basically differs from ADC in two ways - the biomass waste may not be entirely wood based fuel (LI 10061) AND the biomass waste does not have an open market value. It is possible that biomass made entirely from wood derived fuel would comply, but otherwise it does not.

With respect to the documentation issues, our commingled waste is not project specific. Our use of the monthly facility average is satisfactory. We were ultimately awarded the credit, but it can be very painful if there is a fundamental misunderstanding or miscommunication about the documentation during the review process.

Courtney - This credit only addresses site generated waste. Will there be no finish work or any other process on site that generates waste including the site worker’s waste? I don't have experience with modular construction so I checked the Addenda and LEED Interpretations Database. Yet I couldn’t find any additional guidance on a situation where modular construction is used - except for a LEED for Homes LI ID #1856 - http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?keys=1856, which is not applicable for commercial projects.

Does anyone have experience with modular construction and construction waste management that can shed some light on this for Courtney?

Thank you Michelle. I don't understand why only site generated waste and why not waste generated for construction? I mean isn't the intention to divert materials from the waste stream? So really the only waste we use in the calculations is the stuff generated on-site and then we can only document the recycled from that total? Seems so weird to me.

You make some great points. Maybe this is something that should be considered for LEED v5?

Courtney-I just finished constructing (or assembling) a modular building on my property and can tell you there certainly will be some small amount of waste. In our case it was wood scrap, cardboard packaging, paint cans for field applied paint, cement fiberboard and some galvanized metal roof scrap. For LEED purposes, it's not so much the amount of waste generated, but the percentage of that amount recycled, donated or otherwise diverted from landfill. So in our case, it was a couple of small site bins-full, most of which was recycled, maybe 60%. You can also count the crew's (beer) bottles and soda cans, etc. I agree it's not a comprehensive consideration of total waste during the unit's life cycle, but that's where LEED is right now.

From LEED v4's C&DConstruction and demolition Waste Management Credit:

Option 2. Reduction of Total Waste Material (2 points)
Do not generate more than 2.5 pounds of construction waste per square foot (12.2 kilograms of waste per square meter) of the building’s floor area.

I'd say this can easily be read to encompass prefab construction.

Thanks all! I guess that is where its at for the moment. Not a perfect system for a pre-fab/modular situation, but I guess it does reduce the amount of waste tracking, etc. we have to do for credit calculations!

John - I’m not sure what you mean by reuse of waste materials. Do you mean the contractor will bring waste from another jobsite to your jobsite, use some of it (somehow), and then have the remainder hauled away and count towards MRc2 for your project? Typically you can’t capture waste from another project with your values for MRc2.

Hi Michelle,

Thanks for your response. My wording may have been not clear. Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that our contractor may have left over material from our project (wood, metal, plastic) and recycle that waste into projects for their other customers. So they will haul away material from our job site and store it at their property until they are ready to use for another job.

John

Thanks for the clarification. What you describe is definitely diversion from the landfill. So, yes, I would count it towards MRc2. I don’t think there is any special documentation that you would need - although a letter from the contractor stating how they handle these materials might be a good idea to have as backup.

Thanks Michelle!

Jennifer - I have not had experience with your specific situation. We have utilized a truck scale at another facility (like a local feed store) when a scale is not available at the facility our vendor is hauling to in order to get the weight.

The LEED Reference Guide on page 359 (first edition) states that “if exact material weights are not available, use the conversion factorsEstimates are presented in customary U.S. units. Floorspace estimates may be converted to metric units by using the relationship: 1 square foot is approximately equal to 0.0929 square meters. Energy estimates may be converted to metric units by using the relationship: 1 Btu is approximately equal to 1,055 joules; one kilowatthour is exactly equal to 3,600,000 joules; and one gigajoule (109 joules) is approximately 278 kilowatthours (kWh). from Table 2 or another defensible conversion metric to estimate the weight of construction waste.” I think that your suggested methodology could be considered justifiable - although I would suggest comparing it to Table 2 (Rubble) to ensure it appears reasonable.

There is not a maximum distance prescribed by LEED but it will become cost prohibitive to transport waste long distances and may not make financial sense.

Mohd - Can you clarify what type of concrete waste you are looking to divert? Do you have a demolition project and it is existing concrete slabs or foundations? Or are you referring to excess concrete from pours on your jobsite?

Also consider selecting Single-page view at the bottom of this page and searching for “concrete” to see if any of the existing thoughts could be of use in your situation.

My firm’s strategy has always been to only give USGBC/GBCI information that is asked for in the documentation; however, we always prepare a full set of backup so that we have it available and there is no scrambling if a question arises.

I am not positive how LEED reviewers would interpret your situation. So this is my opinion, since the one case you are mentioned was site separated as metals to be diverted yet you do have the backup documentation, I would list the material as diverted (because it was) and keep your backup if they ask for it. Consider looking at http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc2?page=0#comment-30807 below for a discussion regarding commingled.

Yes - this credit addresses demolition of existing spaces/building and waste generated from new construction. Regarding your second question, LEEDuser is not set up to that kind of research for you but maybe others who have experience in Riyadh and have a resource will answer this forum. Also consider contacting a local professional’s society that might have experience with the area.

John, it seems to me that the mockup room is in the scope of your LEED project and should be included in your waste management plan and documentation.

It depends. Will your mock up room become part of the permanent building? If yes, then it is included. If not, then I would say that it does not have to contribute because it is not 'permanently installed'. You would also track the other MR/IEQ credits accordingly for the mock up room.

If your mock up room is not part of the final building, I would encourage your team to construct and deconstruct the mock up room as close to LEED as you can.

Thanks for the guidance on this. The guest room will a separate building actually that will be a part of a campus application.

Dulian - MRc2 is a Construction Phase credit so all its documentation will be submitted after substantial completion of the project. Diverted materials can be recycled or salvaged for reuse. All materials from the demolition that are diverted from the landfill - like the carpets, doors, fixtures, built-in furniture, cabinets, etc., anything that would be considered part of the building - can be counted as such in the calculations for this credit. (For instance, usable furniture that was movable would not be considered construction waste but good on you for keeping it out of the wastestream.) You also do need to track all the landfilled material from the demolition (and the construction later).

If your project is registered, consider getting the form for this credit so you can look more carefully at the documentation requirements. As a LEEDuser member, check out the Documentation Toolkit link above as another way to get the form. This will help explain what documentation you will need to provide to GBCI; however, you will want complete records for your own use.

One of the first things a project creates for this credit is the Construction Waste Management Plan, which is a required upload to LOv3. Your project team administrator should be shepherding the overall certification process and providing you with documentation requirements, tips, and milestones. The LEED Reference Guide is a great source of information as well.

Michelle,

Very helpful, THANKS- just purchased the reference guide so I will spend some time reading through it and getting a better understanding of the requirements. We are all very new to LEED here in the Cayman Islands so I will be coming back with a lot of silly questions (apologies in advance) :-)

Rgds,
D

Dulian, Welcome to the LEED world. I would be happy to be your consultant on call... Just a quick flight down for monthly meetings doesn't sound too bad at all. I have never been there, but am told that the Cayman Islands are wonderful. On a serious note: Your first LEED Construction Coordinator job will bring a multitude of questions but you are at the right place to get the answers. This LEED user forum is second to none and has been a great go to location for answers to questions. Best of luck.

Adrienn - I think it depends on how the information is reported back to you. Do they report an amount/weight recycled for plastic and an amount/weight recycled for paper? Or do they give you an amount/weight of recycled plastic/paper combo? Also how do they provide you information on where the items are recycled - by individual item or as a combination?

Do you have other recycled materials on the job that are collected commingled?

It's not possible to include "land-clearing" debris in the MR 2 calcs, unfortunately. However, the credit language recommends that it be diverted wherever possible. Sending them to a mulching facility is a perfect example of what is meant--the downside is you can't contribute to the LEED credit's percentage by doing so. You don't mention whether the residences in question are part of your own LEED project? If so, there may be a possibility of including them in the recycled content calcs, but MR 4's restrictions may preclude this now. Might be good to follow up with that.

Your remark on land clearing possibly contributing to recycled content is of particular interest. We have ongoing construction that included "land-clearing" and excavation for building foundation. Our site subcontractor uncovered numerous large concrete boulders, that were broken into smaller pieces and sent to concrete plant for development of riprap. Some riprap materials were eventually returned for use on our site. Rebar removal from boulders was also hauled-off for recycling. We tracked delivery of the concrete and rebar materials for possible use with MRc4. Do these recovered materials that were recycled satisfy requirements of MRc4? Please confirm.

David - I hope Marian will chime back in here. I have not counted landclearing debris for MRc4. Typically I have focused on higher cost items.

And don’t forget regional materials (MRc5) for the riprap, but again, the cost may not be worth the calcs.

Regarding the rebar, it would be part of MRc2 but not MRc4. You recycled it - but did not use it as recycled material in your project.

They can count in some cases toward MR 4. You have to be careful that the rip rap is called out in your specs under the accepted spec sections (CSI divisions/sections) that MR 4 governs. Div 3-10 and selected 31 and 32 sections (31 60 00-Foundations, 32 10 00-Paving, 32 30 00-Site Improvements and 32 90 00-Planting). Sometimes it can fall into sections outside these "acceptable" ones. Your next challenge will be to document the volume of rip rap coming to your project and to assign a cost to it (fair market value). As to your last two questions: unless you are using the concrete and recycled rebar in your own project, however, you can't count them in MR 4, but you CAN count them in MR 2. Does that help? Also, do some research on the MR 4 restrictions of using mulch toward this credit. I think it falls outside the definition of "recycled."

Personally, If the comment said 'all MR credits' and not something like 'applied to MRc3 - MRc7' then I would ask the reviewer for a clarification. That flies counter to the Reference Guide. But if you count furniture in MRc5 and you applied for MRc3 and MRc7, then yes, you do have to count it there as well.

OR are you in the wrong forum? Look over the resources for MRc3. You'll need to appy a value to the reuse for furniture and make sure it qualifies as reuse.

Reviewers are human so mistakes could be made in the review comments. Or s/he might have just provided a generic comment for these credits since furniture was included. I would just remind them that you were consistent and that the cost of the furniture is included in the total cost for MRc3-7 per the BDC Calculator.

However, I think you are in the wrong forum for this question because the reviewer did not direct you to include it in MRc2.

Marian -

My gut feeling is that this will not fly; however, if you are not counting on the washout water and aggregate to help you get over a percentage threshold for MRc2, I don’t see the downside in including it either. Consider checking out LI ID#5764 (https://www.usgbc.org/leedinterpretations/LISearch.aspx?liaccessid=5764) for a NC-v2.1 situation regarding bentonite. Consider reporting back to LEEDuser if you are successful.

Karim, I would say that it is not. I have never heard water discussed as applicable to MRc2.

However, you should definitely consider it under SSp1.

I typically summarize quantities by material - cardboard, metals, brick/block, landfilled waste, etc. to show a total for each type of material collected/tracked. If I have a material that was diverted to two different locations or that was collected by two different haulers, then I separate those materials so I can differentiate them on the MRc2 form.

Mark, if the drywall is clean (big if) then it could possibly be a beneficial agricultural amendment. There might be a large producer of compost in the region (such as a company that process municipal waste, or sewage sludge) that could grind it an incorporate it into their product.

I would say no for two reasons. First, this credit is for construction waste, furniture does not really fall under that category. Second, unless both buildings are being certified as one project anything done in Building A will out of scope for the certification of Building B. If the furniture from A was being moved to B to be reused it could qualify for Resource Reuse but not in this case.

After scrolling to the bottom of my haul list, I am also getting this note. This leads me to believe that GBCI expects that a "haul" of commingled waste be broken down so that each line item is a constituent part. For example, what could be listed as 10 Tons of 100% Mixed Recyclables would have to be listed as 5 Tons Conc and 5 Tons Steel and that you would be able to check the "x" and upload documentation. Can anyone confirm whether we can just list a 100% diverted dumpster as a single line item (and forgo) documentation if it was all diverted?

I will add the following food for thought - IF you take the templates note Angie and I are getting at face value ("If 100% of commingled waste is diverted from landfill, select "Diverted" in the "Diverted or Landfill Waste" column"), THEN documentation apparently is not required. Otherwise they could have worded the note to instruct you to break it into constiuent parts.

I was approaching the documentation a little differently...In a spreadsheet, I tracked the tons diverted by material type and the tons landfilled. I was using these totals to fill in the form (for example, a line for concrete at 100% diverted). In my head, it seems like a more concise summary and then the tracking spreadsheet, monthly reports and haul tickets provide backup. But not sure if I am totally off-base with what the reviewers are looking for in regards to commingled.

If anyone can verify that the documentation method outlined in the second post on this string has worked, that would be appreciated. Thanks!

Angie,
When the form presents the "commingled" option, my guess is that this is intended for loads where a percentage (say 90%) of the commingled waste is diverted and sent to a recycling facility and the remaining percentage (10%) is sent to a landfill. In your case, it sounds as though 100% of the commingled waste was diverted from a landfill in which case I think you are safe selecting 100% diverted and not worrying too terribly much about whether it was separated on or off site. The way I read it is that they only want the supporting documentation if a portion of the waste was not diverted. With respect to different materials, I would try to list them separately as much as reasonably possible. Two other suggestions: 1) You could always upload the backup documents with the Construction Waste Management Plan as a separate file to cover your bases, 2) Use the "Feedback" button shown in the far right column when you first select the credit from the Scorecard or when you go to the "Credit Information" tab for that credit. Ask your question directly to the source (GBCI/LEED reviewers). They are usually pretty good about responding.
Hope this helps.
Kris