This credit focuses on diverting waste from landfills by finding multiple alternatives for end uses of the waste, namely recycling, reuse on site, donation for reuse on another site, or resale. All of these diversion methods count towards credit compliance—50% construction waste diverted for one point, 75% for two points.
Look for opportunities to prevent the generation of waste on construction sites because the less waste you generate, the less you have to recycle or reuse to earn the credit.
There are two different approaches to recycling construction and demolition (C&DConstruction and demolition) waste: separating materials at the source (onsite), or commingling them and sending them to an off-site waste sorting facility. Either approach can work well. Your choice will depend on whether there is room for sorting onsite, whether the contractor is willing to take that on, and if there are good sorting facilities nearby.
The ease or difficulty of this credit depends on project-specific and regional conditions.
The general contractor (GC) is responsible for developing the CWM plan early in the construction process, if not before (during preconstruction). The GC does this in collaboration with the project team and is then responsible for implementing it, verifying that it is being followed throughout the construction process, and documenting the results.
Waste generated off-site, even for modular construction and pre-fabrication of major assemblies is not accounted for in the MRc2 calculations. MRc2 looks only at the management of waste generated onsite.
LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #10265 made on 01/01/2013 provides the best official guidance for this situation. The approach that is approved in that situation involves multiple buildings, all being certified to LEED-NC. The ruling allows the project to track together all demolition and construction waste diverted, and to then apply a weighted average based on gross square footageSum of the floor areas of the spaces within the building including basements, mezzanine and intermediate-floored tiers, and penthouses with headroom height of 7.5 ft or greater. It is measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating buildings, but excluding covered walkways, open roofed-over areas, porches and similar spaces, pipe trenches, exterior terraces or steps, chimneys, roof overhangs, and similar features. to each LEED project. Each building must meet the required threshold for waste diversion in order to earn the credit and in addition, the Construction Waste Management (CWM) Plan must outline goals for diversion for each building, not just as an aggregate across all projects.
If your project is in a similar situation but with different specific circumstances, LEEDuser would recommend adopting that advice as closely as possible, while accounting for any differences in a way that meets the LEED credit intent. Some projects may want to get an official ruling—either a CIR or LEED Interpretation.
Yes, materials that would otherwise be waste, but that are diverted from the landfill to be salvaged or reused can contribute to MRc2.
No. Hazardous waste does not count and it is excluded from the numerator and denominator portions of the credit calculations. You may want to include a brief narrative on the hazardous waste you found and how your project abated the material.
There has been some debate about this, since on the one hand this waste does not qualify as typical C&D waste, but on the other hand it is waste generated onsite, which this credit is intended to address. LEEDuser's experts recommend including this waste because it falls under the broader definition of waste generated onsite, and because reduction, recycling and diversion programs can be extremely effective in reducing the quantity of this waste. Having workers pay attention to this waste makes them more aware of overall job-site recycling, and not mixing lunch waste with construction waste like scrap metal increases the recyclability of the construction waste.
USGBC has ruled (for example, see LEED Interpretation #10061) that diverting waste to incineration facilities does not contribute to MRc2, but that Wood Derived Fuel (WDF) does meet the intent of this credit. As that ruling states, "The WDF process differs from incineration processes that are not allowed in this credit because the recycling facility provides a value-added process; it is a service that exists to sort and distribute materials appropriate to the highest end uses possible. In addition, the revenue generated by the WDF commodity helps to make this business successful and thus facilitates recycling of wood to other end uses as well as recycling of other materials."
According to the LEED Reference Guide, land-clearing debris includes soil, vegetation, and rocks.
Use the solid waste 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). in the LEED Reference Guide to account for recycled materials in dumpsters billed by volume.
It is typically better to use project-specific diversion data when you can get it, and this data should typically be accepted in a LEED review. However, there are other options.
There are LEED Interpretations such as LEED Interpretation #10060 made on 5/9/2011 that allow use of a facility-wide recycling rate, if approved by local regulators. On similar lines, a 5/9/2011 addendum added this note to the LEED 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.”
Either identify a hauler with a strong recycling program, or research and find local recycling facilities to which you can send your hauler.
Research the waste management system:
Check local government websites for recycling programs. Also search for other ways to put materials back in circulation, such as exchange programs and brokers. For example, pallets and packaging can be sold or given away through these programs.
Construction materials vary with project location and building type. Some materials are easier to recycle than others. For example, copper wire and steel studs are readily recycled into new products, but vinyl tiles may not be. Research and specify what materials can be recycled, reused, or salvaged in the project’s municipality or region—and design with these materials so that waste scrap can be diverted from the landfill. For example, specify carpet from a manufacturer that has a take-back program, or ceiling tiles that are easily recyclable. Using precast concrete will avoid waste generation from in-situ concrete that will help in total waste generated.
Demolition projects can give away furniture, computers, and other equipment. Projects can also reuse items like doors, and crush demolished concrete and other paving materials to be reused as fill onsite. Demolition and renovation jobs can present many opportunities for salvaging items like wood timbers, architectural detailing, stonework, and millwork for reuse on another project, sale, or donation.
Research and use manufacturer “take-back” programs as much as possible. Manufacturers increasingly take back equipment and materials at no or low cost to the project. These programs are common with certain equipment and computers, ceiling tiles, and carpeting, for example.
Develop a list of construction materials from the budget estimate.
Determine if the waste will be measured by volume or by weight and keep it consistent. (Most projects pursue measurement by weight instead of volume.)
Target materials that are plentiful and either heavy or voluminous, depending on your documentation approach, and that are easy to recover and recycle to meet the 50% or 75% credit thresholds.
If discarding a lot of heavy stone, metal or masonry products, it will probably be more advantageous to track weight.
If discarding lots of packaging, insulating foam, and other light materials, you may prefer to track volume.
Selecting the right waste processor can minimize cost, but you have to strike a balance between cost and the feasibility of using that waste processing plant based on distance from the site and whether the hauler will agree to use that facility.
Recycling often generates revenue for the hauler who may then reduce the fee for the project. It also generates savings by reducing landfill tipping fees, which is beneficial to the contractor.
Contractors may claim that the CWM coordination and administrative oversight cost more money than recycling is worth, but many good contractors have figured out how to do CWM and can make it work for the same amount or less than typical trash hauling. This is somewhat dependent on the location of the project and available local resources.
If dealing with an existing building and a large amount of material is salvageable, consider deconstruction and materials salvage as an alternative to demolition. The contractor will have to oversee the process carefully. Many resources are available on deconstruction. (See Resources.)
Deconstruction will add extra cost to the project due to the additional labor required to take materials apart, remove nails from wood, and maintain material integrity. Ideally, the contractor will find a buyer for the materials to help offset these costs.
Thinking long term, consider what design decisions can increase the likelihood of deconstruction further down the road when specifying materials and systems to be used in the current project. Material selection and assembly type can impact how materials may be deconstructed and reused at the end of the building’s life-cycle.
Perform a site survey to decide whether deconstruction makes sense. This will depend on how the building was assembled and the value of the materials to be salvaged.
Deconstruction is a good practice for maintaining a building material’s integrity so it can be reused. It certainly diverts waste from landfill and contributes to credit compliance as waste diversion.
Typically, good materials to salvage via deconstruction include wood framing, steel columns and beams, hardwood flooring, multi-paned windows, architectural details, plumbing and electrical fixtures, hardware and cabinetry, and high-quality brick work.
Renovation and restoration projects are good candidates for deconstruction.
There are industry standards on good practices for deconstruction as well as directories of experienced contractors, such as the Deconstruction Institute (see Resources).
Deconstruction can take longer than demolition. Project teams should estimate whether the extra labor spent on deconstruction can be offset by the value of the salvaged materials. Other benefits to weigh include the environmental benefits of reduced waste and avoiding use of new resources, and publicity benefits for materials reuse.
The project team should discuss the appropriate recycling process, including whether sorting will occur on or off site. This decision may be made after the general contractor joins the team. Both options have pros and cons (see table).
Early in the project, the architect should be involved in the plan to schedule construction and deconstruction with the contractor.
Hire a general contractor early in the project to discuss the deconstruction process and phasing.
Integrate CWM plan and MRc2 requirements into the construction specifications.
For guidance on how to write LEED specifications and CWM requirements into construction documents, see MasterSpec (see Resources).
If separation is occurring off-site at a comingled or mixed-debris processing plant, make sure the processor or recycling facility can provide documentation for the amount of waste processed, by weight or by volume, as agreed, as well as a diversion rate from the facility. This could be either a project-specific diversion rate supplied by the facility, or a letter from the state regulating body with the facility's average rate of recycling.
Waste prevention is an important part of CWM.
Orienting the GC to the tracking tools early on and providing on-going support to the CWM effort is critical to success.
The GC and project team should hold an orientation meeting to review all LEED-specific issues related not only to recycling and reuse, or salvaging, but also to reducing waste onsite in general.
The GC develops the CWM plan.
A CWM plan is an action plan for how to deal with construction and demolition (C&D) waste. At a minimum, it needs to identify what the recycling goals are, what materials will be recycled, reused or salvaged, which materials will be landfilled, and the estimated amounts of each (either by volume or by weight, but consistently throughout the project), processors that will receive the construction and demolition waste, and onsite procedures for achieving the stated goals.
Developing the CWM plan is the responsibility of the contractor but, ideally, the project team should work together to come up with a thorough CWM plan that addresses not only recycling, but also reusing and salvaging as many materials as possible.
In developing a CWM plan, take into account regional constraints, and weigh the feasibility of recycling or salvaging materials against other environmental factors, such as the impact of hauling waste long distances if recyclers are far from the project site. In such an instance, if site conditions allow, one strategy would be to stockpile material to be hauled only once or twice during a project to cut down on transportation cost and associated environmental impact.
Source separating, or onsite sorting, can yield the highest recycling rate and the best price for materials. Try to encourage the contractor to locate separate containers onsite to sort the materials.
Providing a sample CWM plan and guidelines on how to communicate it to subcontractors and workers can help to minimize any hesitation on the part of the GC.
Hiring construction teams that already have LEED experience and are familiar with CWM is helpful for credit achievement. They may already have developed CWM plans, have existing relationships with haulers and recyclers, and know how to train construction field personnel in CWM practices and track diversion rates.
Review LEED requirements with contractors during the bidding process so that they understand their responsibilities.
Subcontractors should be contractually required to implement their part of the CWM plan. Accountability is key to successfully implementing a CWM plan.
Hire a special deconstruction contractor if required.
Provide a deconstruction-detailed drawing and specification with specific handling instructions for each material to be removed, such as whether it will be salvaged and sold, reused onsite, or marked for recycling.
Require measures for deconstruction in the CWM plan.
The GC is responsible for implementing the CWM plan and making sure the recycling and reuse goals are met. (The GC should make sure to review the action steps and tips associated with developing the CWM plan, above.)
Provide training for each contractor and subcontractor about the CWM plan and the importance of documenting it. Make sure everyone is on the same page regarding recycling goals. Make each training session specific to that trade.
As new subcontractors start work on site, have a LEED orientation session as part of safety trainings or other jobsite orientation meetings.
Consider designating a recycling coordinator (most likely someone in the GC’s office) to deal with all issues both onsite and off-site pertaining to CWM and making sure the plan is implemented properly and followed by all involved.
Weekly construction meetings should include an update, with a biweekly or monthly report collected by the LEED consultant, architect or owner. The CWM plan should outline this step, but it is important to make sure that all subcontractors and the GC are working together to comply during construction.
The contractor should communicate with all subcontractors about the recycling policy to make sure it is being followed. Recycling activities should be discussed regularly at job meetings.
A designated recycling coordinator can facilitate communication with all field personnel and address problems in the field promptly. This can reduce the risk of getting to the end of construction and falling short of diversion goals when it is too late to do anything about it.
The GC and recycling coordinator should track the deconstruction process and make sure requirements and specifications are being met.
The deconstruction contractor submits sales receipts, donation receipts, and recycling weight tickets to the GC or recycling coordinator, so the diversion rates can be included in the CWM tally.
Preserving materials for reuse reduces waste disposal fees.
Train the staff on how to streamline onsite waste sorting. Identify champions within each subcontractor’s team to lead the CWM effort for their teams.
Designate a separate area to place bins for recycling. If waste is commingled (for off-site separation by the recycling center), some additional space is still required to keep wet waste and other garbage apart from recyclables.
A good CWM plan will include measures for waste prevention so that less waste is created in the first place. Consider requesting subcontractors to ask their vendors to use minimal or take-back packaging. As an incentive, specify that all subcontractors are responsible for returning pallets or recycling their packaging.
Use signage to support the CWM plan—reminding subcontractors to sort waste appropriately. Post signs on the sorting bins, garbage cans, and throughout the site. Signs should include whatever languages are needed to communicate with workers on the jobsite.
The recycling coordinator tracks onsite waste recycling every month, or with every filled bin, to stay on track. The bins may fill at different times, depending on the material. Every time a bin is emptied and weighed, fill in the data on the tracking sheet.
In cities where tipping fees are high, a lot of waste haulers separate waste automatically, just to avoid the fees, so contractors and subcontractors may have to source-separate onsite anyway.
Consider fencing recycling areas, screening recycling and trash dumpsters from the public or locating them in an inconspicuous area. Neighborhood “use” of dumpsters to dispose of old mattresses and other furnishings is a problem that contractors deal with regularly, especially in cities where disposal of bulky items is expensive. On the other hand, in areas where there are limited resources for construction waste recycling, projects can stockpile wood and other potentially desirable construction waste and make it available to workers and the community to take home. This material can then count towards diversion.
If separation is occurring off-site, make sure recyclables are not contaminated with other garbage and wet waste. Provide separate containers for food waste and miscellaneous garbage and mark all containers clearly and prominently.
Keeping coffee cups and food waste out of recycling bins can be especially challenging. Use clear signage to prevent this and make it easy for food waste to be properly disposed of by providing trash cans clearly marked and in various locations on the site or at each building level.
If separation is occurring off-site at a mixed-debris processing plant, make sure the recycling facility can provide documentation for the amount of waste processed, by weight or by volume, as well as monthly recycling rate information, which is required for documentation purposes.
Keep an ongoing log of weight tickets and receipts. The GC needs to track construction waste throughout the construction process. It is crucial that contractors request and keep all receipts and weight tickets from recycling companies to prove that diversion goals were achieved, as well as letters from recycling companies certifying their monthly recycling rates.
Maintain a project log to input all the monthly reports in one place. This will track project waste recycling rates and provide an alert if the average is lower than the target of 50% or 75%. Address these shortfalls early in the process to ensure that final diversion rates can be met.
LEED project managers should provide contractors with tracking or log-book forms to simplify the tracking process. See the Resources section for the LEEDuser CWM tracking calculator.
Waste amounts must be tracked consistently, either by weight or volume. If materials are very heavy, it is best to use the weight approach. Most waste processors track by weight, anyway. But this will depend on what the bulk of the project’s waste is made of.
Do not include land-clearing debris or excavated soil or rock in your calculations. Even if diverted from landfill, it is not to be included in the credit calculations. Contractors often think that trees and stumps are still part of the diverted waste, but take them out of the LEED credit form and supporting documentation if the contractor includes them.
Compile construction waste recycling data from all the monthly reports, and complete your LEED documentation online for submission to the USGBC.
Monthly reports from recycling facilities, showing their average monthly recycling rates, are an appropriate form of documentation for this credit.
Build on construction waste management practices for future renovations and remodeling.
Excerpted from LEED 2009 for New Construction and Major Renovations
To divert construction and demolition debris from disposal in landfills and incineration facilities. Redirect recyclable recovered resources back to the manufacturing process and reusable materials to appropriate sites.
Recycle and/or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris. Develop and implement a construction waste management plan that, at a minimum, identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal and whether the materials will be sorted on-site or 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.. Excavated soil and land-clearing debris do not contribute to this credit. Calculations can be done by weight or volume, but must be consistent throughout. The minimum percentage debris to be recycled or salvaged for each point threshold is as follows:
Establish goals for diversion from disposal in landfills and incineration facilities and adopt a construction waste management plan to achieve these goals. Consider recycling cardboard, metal, brick, mineral fiber panel, concrete, plastic, clean wood, glass, gypsum wallboard, carpet and insulation. Construction debris processed into a recycled content commodity that has an open market value (e.g., wood derived fuel [WDF], 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, etc.) may be applied to the construction waste calculation. Designate a specific area(s) on the construction site for segregated or 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. collection of recyclable materials, and track recycling efforts throughout the construction process. Identify construction haulers and recyclers to handle the designated materials. Note that diversion may include donation of materials to charitable organizations and salvage of materials on-site.
Source for receiving salvaged or deconstructed materials.
Waste management solutions - New York only.
New York City's only non-profit retail outlet for salvaged and surplus building materials.
A step-by-step guide on deconstruction for contractors.
Template for writing specifications on construction waste management as part of the MasterSpec licensed spec system.
Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers sample spec language.
Sample CWM Plan.
Resources Guide to developing a CWM plan.
This is a resource database of contractors proficient with deconstruction and organizations, distributors, or contractors seeking material to salvage.
This website from the California Integrated Waste Management Board contains information on recycling and the use of recycled-content materials. The site includes many publications available for free download, such as sample construction and demolition debris recycling specifications.
This online database contains information on companies that haul, collect and process recyclable debris from construction projects sorted by zip code.
CMDepot is a place where you can buy & sell excess construction material, tools, & equipment. You simply login, submit a listing of your excess material, and wait for a buyer. If a buyer contacts you, you can work out payment details and a delivery method.
Comprehensive web page on construction waste management for large projects, with links to other resources.
WasteCapTRACE is an online documentation program for tracking construction and demolition debris recycling. It generates a custom construction waste management plan, provides a forum in which multiple team members can record data, and outputs reports and charts for your LEED submission. WasteCapTRACE is priced on a per-project basis, with fees linked to project square footage (like LEED application fees).
PlanetReuse is a nationwide reclaimed construction material broker and consultant company. They make it easier to use a wide variety of reclaimed materials in new projects as well as help find new projects for building materials being deconstructed, guiding owners and contractors through every step of the process. LEED documents are also provided for waste management documentation.
This guide is developed by wastematch.org, an organization that matches donors to recipients.
Model specification language that can be used by architects and engineers who want to reduce waste during construction.
Use clear signage such as in these example to keep construction and demolition waste separated for diversion purposes.
If you use commingled construction waste management, in which CWM is commingled and weighed off-site or calculated using a recycling facility's average diversion rate, you'll need special documentation to justify your rates for LEED. This sample was provided by Sustainable Solutions Corporation.
Use a tracking sheet and calculator like this one to monitor your credit compliance.
This document provides key tips and sample tracking sheets and checklists for your project's construction waste management (CWM) plan.
The following links take you to the public, informational versions of the dynamic LEED Online forms for each NC-2009 MR credit. You'll need to fill out the live versions of these forms on LEED Online for each credit you hope to earn.
Version 4 forms (newest):
Version 3 forms:
These links are posted by LEEDuser with USGBC's permission. USGBC has certain usage restrictions for these forms; for more information, visit LEED Online and click "Sample Forms Download."
Our Project got 100% diversion. This was a result of a very hard work implemented by the builder, the owner and the entire costruction team. They even recycled the wrapping pappers from the paving blocks. They trained the workers, there was a person auditing the construction site full time every day, they even found a company that recycled cement bags, a hazardous waste, which does not count for this credit but we'd like to mention to illustrate the effort that was implemented. All this and the final review decision was to deny the 2 points of the credit and 1 point of exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements.....Was all or nothing, very unfair.
Now we are entering the appeal stage but we don't even know what type of arguments we could use to prove all the actions taken. On the preliminar review we already submitted all the waste haul receipts, spreadsheets and a letter signed by the general contractor stating all the actions taken to achieve such result. And the comitee denied. Is it even worth to try? How? What other type of documentation could we possibly submit to prove this?
Marcio - Can you give us more information as to why it was denied (give us the review comments) and when (meaning what review phase was it denied at)? Without having more information as to why they denied the credit it is hard to respond. If you truly diverted 100% per LEED requirements, I am puzzled by the denial and it could be an instance of a reviewer error.
I work hard to not have credits denied and so have never dealt with a formal appeal. I would direct you to the LEED Certification Policy Manual - https://www.leedonline.com/irj/go/km/docs/documents/usgbc/leed/config/te... - to understand the logistics and documentation process (start on page 20).
Maybe other LEED users can assist as well.
It's our first time appealing as well. That's why we are feeling a little insecure about the procedure.
I've read the Appeal Policy, and they mention such things as "First Level Appeal" and "Final Level Appeal", which just made me more confused....and plus, and this goes on "appeal as a challenge to GBCI Determination" and Appeal to pursue new credits". These last ones I understood, I think we fit on the 1st case, since we disagree with the decision.
Here's the review comment:
"(...) However, a 100% diversion rate is above typical industry best practices since there are usually product containers, small scraps, and debris that are not recyclable. Please provide a narrative explaining how miscellaneous materials such as those listed above were diverted from landfill."
As I mentioned in the other post, they even recycled the wraping paper of all materials that arrives in the construction site. To respond to this "however" in the preliminar review we submitted: 1) all the waste haul receipts, 2) letter signed by the general contractor explaining all the actions taken to achieve 100%, 3) spreadsheet showing the monitoring of all waste generated over the entire construction period.
Don't know what else can we say to prove...
Marcio - I think the thing that you'll have a hard time overcoming is the 100% claim. The EP point threshold is 95%. Beyond pride, is there a reason to push for 100% and not 95%?
Also, I hope you write up a case study on these unusual materials diverted. There are a lot of projects and contractors that would be interested in your innovative processes.
Marcio, if you want to work with me on a case study of 100% diversion, please contact me. I think Susan hit the nail on the head, though.
Susan and Tristan - Thanks for chiming in. Susan is spot on with the 95% diversion rate and the request that you write up your innovative strategies.
Marcio - You should take Tristan up on his offer!
But first, the comment you quoted sounds like a clarification request - not a denial. Are you sure it was denied and is not pending per the request for additional information?
No Michelle, it's written "denied", I've double checked. This review coment I posted above is the last one we got, from the preliminary review application report. I looked but couldn't find an updated report available between final decision and acceptance of final decision. For our other projects, I could easily access the report imediatelly after acceptance of deicision. But since this one is "in between" decision/acceptance of decision I didn't see any report avaliable...
So folks, in order for us to proceed with the appeal process, do you see any other type of documentation that we could use to retrieve these 3 points? It's okay for us to keep it between 95%<100%. I just wonder how we would "unsay" what it's already said...since we've already said, two times (1sr in the original submission and 2nd in response to the review comments), we diverted a 100%, how can we go about to say now that we diverted less than this without seeming that we are saying it just to gain these 3 points?
Thanks for the invite, we would love to engage our team in working on a case study with you! Tristan, guess the link you sent with your contact is broken, would you mind sending it again?
Marcio, the link works fine for me. It should go to our contact page.
Marico - Do you have photographs, receipts, and other documentation you can provide? You need to build a case and show what you did.
Here is the link from Tristan again - http://www.leeduser.com/contact.
I have been involved in several appeals. Something is not quite right. Though I agree with the 95% comment by Susan and all the advice you've been given, it seems to me that what you need to make your argument is their second review response. If I understand correctly, you submitted your data and got their preliminary comment. You then resubmitted your responses and got denied.
There would have to be a second comment responding to your "resubmitted" data that should give you the key as to why they are still unhappy. I'm not sure why you can't get a report that shows it, but have you tried the Review Comment link on the Credit Information page of that specific credit?
If it were me, in order to build my argument, I would first pursue their response to the resubmitted data.
Hi Michelle! I'm so glad you mentioned the Review Comment link on the credit informaiton page I haven't clicked there. Just found out that there was a misinterpretation somewhere along the way. For some reason, they though we sent waste for incineration and didn't inform how much! No idea where they got that from...I wonder if was a language thing since we submitted in portuguese. Oh wow, that makes it even more unfair...now the client will have to pay for it in order to appeal. And the worst thing is that the 2nd comment is completely diferent from the 1st comment, which states the 'problem' is proving the 100%. In the second comment the problem turns out to be incineration. Crazy! Comments from the second review below. What's the best way to respond to that?
"However, as stated in LEED InterpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #3004, #2141, and #10138, and based on the credit intent, incineration of construction waste materials cannot be used as an alternative for diverting waste from the landfill. The credit intent states, "Divert construction and demolition debris from disposal in landfills and incineration facilities." From the documentation provided, it is not clear of the amount diverted from landfill what amount of waste had not been sent to incineration facilities. Therefore it is not possible to determine the total percentage of construction waste actually diverted from landfill as defined and outlined by the LEED Building Design and Construction Reference Guide 2009 Edition."
Marico - It's so great that resourceful folks, like Michelle, provide their insight. I am glad you discovered the issue but do not despair about the unfairness yet. This is the perfect opportunity to use the Questions about Review Comments dropdown from the GBCI Contact Us page - http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que.... If a mistake was made during the reviews, you should not have to pay to appeal it - especially if a language barrier was part of the issue. BEFORE YOU APPEAL, use the method I note about and explain your case. Based on my past experience with this method, you should be able to get assistance to get this corrected without a fee.
Thanks for showing me this oportunity! I use the GBCI contact page often, but didn't know there was a chance of questioning the final review and even get the appeal fee waived.
My only concern is about the deadlines they are giving for response. We no longer have this kind of time to wait for GBCI's answer. The appeal has to be submitted 25 business days after the final review righ? Is it possible to request an extension for the appeal period? Who should I ask this extension for? GBCI? My review team??
Don't worry about the time. They will extend the dates if you are working on an issue with the review comments. I would mention the deadline in your inquiry about the review comments. However, if you feel it is necessary, you can also request an extension (I've never had one denied) via GBCI - Contact Us. Select Project Review Extension Request from the dropdown. You have to be the Project Team Administrator and Manager to do this. Hope this helps!
Marico - I contacted a GBCI contact on your behalf. She said the information you’ve gotten here is spot on! She said using the Contact Us page is the best route to get this issue resolved. She generously offered to help usher you through this if you would provide me the project number (and I will get it to her) - but she stressed that she would be the middle person and Contact Us would be more direct. I would urge you to just use Contact Us as noted above and get this resolved directly.
I agree with Michelle. If there is truly no incineration showing in your documentation, you should be able to fight this. It is my understanding that reviewers are not supposed to bring up something new on the second round, unless there is really good reason to based on the clarification info provided. That I can't speak to, and I'm not sure how they deal with international language based issues.
However, this sounds more to me like you sent up a red flag for them by saying 100% and from there they were basically looking for the error you must have made because they were skeptical from the start. Please note they could also have initiated a mid-review clarification request on this and didn't. Unfortunate.
Using the contact page can work and you could also try a direct email to the review team assigned to your project if you have a team email on your Team Admin page. With respect to the appeal timeframe and fee, you're right that time is limited after final review. I would include that concern and see what happens. Though I have known them to reverse these kinds of things, I have never known them to refund money that has been handed over. If you don't have any time at all, you may have to consider eating the fee if you need the points.
Michelle Reott and Michelle Rosenberger: I just can't tell how helpful you have been to our case! I already sent a request under "Questions on review comments" in GBCI Contact us page. I informed them about the new information provided in the final review about incineration and my concerns about the deadline. I told them which date the final report was published and what was our deadline. I also informed that the documentation was sent in portuguese and that was no claim at all for incineration as an alternative diversion method. Just to make sure we would be fine, I called GBCI and asked for an extension over the phone, asking them 25 more business days and a confirmation email with the new deadlines, so if anything happens, we can prove we are covered. They already sent the confirmation email, end of March 31st is our new deadline.
M. Reott - the Project ID# is 100002268 Borg Warner Itatiba Master Site. And the final report on a dependent block Project (P10 Entrada Borg Warner Brasil ID#1000022629) was already published and the MRc2 + exemplar performance is showing as denied as well. Thank you so much for your intervention, look forward any feedback!
M. Rosenberger - we haven't handed any money yet, and now we are under the new deadline, as GBCI confirmed to us by email. So we have a little more time to deal with it and get the best solution!
Than you all!!
If I were a reviewer I would question the 100% diversion rate. As a long time contractor, I know there are waste streams that are not economically worthy of segregation. The accumulated debris from daily sweeping that includes sweeping compound, shell casings and plastic strips from powder actuated tools, sawzall blades, sawdust, masonry dust, plastic strips from shim bundles, nuts, bolts, screws, drywall mud, cigarette butts, caulk and adhesive drippings, lunch debris, the dirt that walks in on the shoes of the construction workers, etc., etc. I would be very impressed if this waste stream is separated and diverted from a landfill.
Hi Samuel, thanks for your input. Yes, you are right, there was waste that was not economically feasible to send for recycling, such as styrofoam and gipsum, which don't weight much but have big volume. But even those were sent for recycling, despite the higehr cost. Over the course of the Project the construction company posed as a challenge to itself to achieve 100% diversion goal. That definitely helped them in building a reputation on the local Market. From their perspective, this Project was kind a pilot project as far as waste management.
We are trying to get in touch with the GBCI to get this resolved because the major issue now is that the review team, in the final report, stated that we claimed incineration as an alternate method of diversion, but we never claimed that.
Wanted to tie up a few loose ends on this thread…
Marcio - I did NOT pass your project ID along to USGBC contact because you were already following the correct channels for communication.
Be sure to stress the pilot project nature of your project but I have to say that true 100% diversion would be almost miraculous.
Michelle Rosenberger - Thanks so much for chiming in! I agree with your statement that reviewers are not supposed to bring up anything new in the clarification round - yet I'd like to expand on your "really good reason." Sarah Alexander answered that question on the January 2014 Quarterly Connect. She stated that if during clarifications, new information brings to light new issues or puts previous information into question, then they can bring up something new in their response. Otherwise, if they missed something in the first review, they are only supposed to raise it as an FYI only.
Hi Michelle, I already re-sent the question to GBCI because the first answer we received from them was not conclusive. They only agreed to give us the extension, but made no comments on the main issue.
At this point we are not even worried about the 100% anymore, but we also do not want it to be all or nothing. Was a very hard work to settle for 0% diversion. So we are ok with desconsidering some of the residues and claiming a percentage 95%<100%. But we still believe there is a way to do that without having to pay for an appeal, since we never claimed incineration as a diversion method and that point was never mentioned by the reviewers until the final report.
Regarding your point about bringing up new issues though, in our case, they did not bring up this new issue as a FYI. They brought it up as the reason why the project were not awarded the points. This is questionable, right? We don't want this situation to incur in any unecessary fees to our client.
Marcio (sorry for misspelling your name in some of my earlier posts) - Having not seen your review comments, but based on what you've shared, I would say yes - bringing up incineration seems questionable.
No problem about the misspelling Michelle! Our team appreciate all the inputs. We will keep you folks up to that on that issue so we can all learn.
I'm happy to announce that our request to GBCI under 'contact us' tool had a positive outcome! They asked the review team to double check the analysis of MRc2 and its exemplary performanceIn LEED, certain credits have established thresholds beyond basic credit achievement. Meeting these thresholds can earn additional points through Innovation in Design (ID) or Innovation in Operations (IO) points. As a general rule of thumb, ID credits for exemplary performance are awarded for doubling the credit requirements and/or achieving the next incremental percentage threshold. However, this rule varies on a case by case basis, so check the credit requirements.. The review team apologized for the mistake and granted the 3 points. No need to appeal! The master site final report and the P10 (building) final report were already updated.
I just want to thank you all for your precious insights, we would never be able to achieve that result without your help. Our facility is now LEED Silver, superseeding the original expectations of a basic certification!
Hurrah! Way to end the week on high note!! Con mucho gusto!!
I have one last silly question: since we thought we would have to make an appeal, we had clicked the "enter appeal stage" button on the overview tab in LEED online. And now that no appeal will be necessary, what is the procedure? I can just click the "cancel appeal" button and it will go back to the previous screen that says "proceed to post-certification"?
Marcio - As noted earlier, I don't have experience with appeals but if there is a "cancel appeal" button that seems like the way to go. When in doubt, call GBCI Customer Service for assistance or to ask your question.
Not sure where to post this question but here's our issue: we received the final decision about our multiple buildings Project. We are going to appeal MRc2 which we pursued via master site. However they already made a decision on one of the 4 buildings associated with this master site. And they already denied the MRc2 credit before our appeal process is finished! How does this work? We never made an appeal before, especially for multiple buildings. Does the client have to pay a separate appeal fee for each building + master site even though is the same credit??
Is there a deadline that we have to enter appeal stage after master sites final decision? How many days?
Marcio - Please see my response above. I don’t think this forum can answer your questions on appeals and hope Tristan Roberts or others will chime in. When in doubt, you can also contact USGBC/GBCI Customer Service or use the Contact Us page of GBCI - http://www.gbci.org/org-nav/contact/Contact-Us/Project-Certification-Que....
Marcio, I would do as Michelle suggests and contact GBCI. This seems like a confusing situation for everyone, and for us looking at it from the outside it's especially hard to tell what's going on.
Hi folks. I intended to learn more about "dependent" credits on an appeal stage, how it Works regarding the fees (MRc2 + its exemplar performance, credits pursued via master site). Found the appeal section of the forum, already posted there. Have also sent a question to GBCI. Thanks!
To make room for our new structure, we have some existing metal buildings on our site that will be dismantled and reassembled by others on someone else's property. We can get weights of the materials, but do we need additional documentation on where they are rebuilt and who did the work?
Martin - For LEED documentation, I think having the just the weight and hauler/location is all you need. But for your backup (your own records), you should have more detailed information on the sale (or donation) of the buildings and the location(s) where they are going to be reassembled - in case there are any questions from GBCI.
Also, make sure that these metal buildings are outlined in your CWM Plan and discuss they are going to be dismantled and reassembled elsewhere.
It wants me to select one of the "additional details" but neither seem correct. What is considered "standard submittal" process?
Robyn, the standard submittal path is basically everything that comes before the Additional Details section of the LEED Online form.
You are not required to select the Additional Details if they don't apply—that's why they're "additional"!
Thanks. When I set the form as complete, it is telling me that I may be missing documentation and need to look at the additional detail section, but the only document I was required was the plan. So I was wondering if I misinterpreted the form.
Robyn - Which version of the form (lower right corner) are you using? Some of the earlier forms did have glitches and you have to type some text into the Special Circumstances to get it to show compliance. (I recently had to do this on an EAp1 form. I just typed: "In order to get the form to show compliance, we had to enter something in the Special Circumstances area of the form.")
Do you need to upload any commingled waste documentation? This should be handled in Upload MRc2-2.
The signs need to be in both English and Spanish to be effective in separating the materials.
I'm not clear about using the LEED online forms. Are they supposed to filled in periodically and uploaded into the system or is this done at the end of the project when submitting for credits?
Kelly - LOv3 forms are used for documentation submittal purposes - so you don’t fill them out and periodically upload them. They are finalized and submitted when the project is submitting all affected prerequisites and credits to GBCI for review. Hopefully you have a LEED Project Team Administrator who could answer any questions you have about your team’s submittal process and deadlines.
That said, you want to be keeping your own up-to-date records for making the LEED form easy to complete at the end of the project. Having access to LOv3 allows you to know what data will be required.
Where can I find a working Commingled Waste Diversion Tracking Sheet. The samples I've found don't have working macros.
Lee - Did you check out the Construction Waste Management Tracking Sheet under Documentation Toolkit tab? (Or is that the one you are having trouble with regarding macros?) Or could you convert the Commingled Waste Diversion Tracking Sheet from a PDF to a spreadsheet? I’m not sure I can offer much other help - other than using Google to search for one.
Anyone have a waste diversion spreadsheet you can share?
We have a good amount of concrete scrap that we intend to use as backfilling material on-site and at another site. Will this be considered as waste diversion? Thanks.
Sompoche - I think that concrete scrap used as backfill is a common waste diversion tactic. I wanted to make sure you were aware of clicking the Single -page view link at the bottom of the page so you can read and search all posts for items of interest. For instance, Single -page view opens http://www.leeduser.com/credit/NC-2009/MRc2?all-comments=true and then search for concrete. There are threads below called Concrete Recycling and Construction Waste Management || Clean Fill (among others) that might be of interest to you.
Our client is purchasing new furniture for a newly constructed building. We're using the LEED NC 2009 rating system. Although small compared to the rest of the waste produce on the project, should the waste generated from the furniture packaging (e.g. plastic, styrofoam) be included in this credit?
Gavin - Sorry for my delay in responding. I was away from e-mail for a week.
I have typically included waste generated on site until the contractor has removed the dumpsters from the project. So, if furniture arrives while the dumpsters are still on site then I would include the waste in the calcs. If, however, the dumpsters are gone, then I wouldn’t include it. I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule - but keeping the waste out of the landfill is the overall goal - whether or not it contributes to earning MRc2.
I am involved with a project whom has an existing building on the site but will take it down to building another building. I understand this credit requires to include both C&DConstruction and demolition waste into the calculations. However, this is a unique situation because the building was a victim of Hurricane Sandy and FEMA deemed the building as "hazardous waste" and will not permit any of the contents inside to be reused or recycled. So, my question is, how should this be handled for MRc2? Do you think it would be acceptable to not include the demolition waste in the calculations of the existing building and upload some FEMA documentation to explain why these values were not included? Please advise.
Hazardous waste is excluded from the construction waste diversion calculatios.
Thanks, Michelle. Right I knew that. I think am wondering more about documentation and if it was going to be a problem. But I guess there isn't an option if FEMA says so. Thanks.
Sorry Courtney, that was kind of a brief response on my part to your question. Yes, it would probably be a good idea to upload the FEMA docs to indicate that the demolition was excluded due to its hazardous designation. It would be reasonable for reviewers to wonder about demo if they didn't see it in your C&DConstruction and demolition waste. A proactive explanation in Special Circumstances is always a good idea. Have a good one.
Our project emits a certain volume of wood waste, which is used mainly for packaging equipment. In our country most of clean wood weaste will be recycled into wood chip which will be reused as biomass fuel to generate energy. Wood waste which will be recycled in that way can be counted to recycled waste, or incinerated waste?
The most recent answer I received as of 5/17/13 from the USGBC directly on this issue is that "Biomass fuel is not currently an acceptable method of waste diversion, as indicated by LI 10061. Note that this LI isn’t necessarily specific to the issue of incineration but rather the types of waste that are appropriate to be converted to fuel (wood derived). Note that it’s possible that wood based materials sent to this facility could contribute to the waste diversion rate."
The first statement is clear but the LI referenced doesn't even use the word biomass and is all about wood derived fuel and incineration. The reasoning seems to be that biomass can be generated by other materials than just wood. My facility was using wood + other materials to create biomass and was not purchasing the wood for that purpose but was only selling the resulting methane.
If your facility is only using wood to create biomass, you might have a shot at making an argument that the wood should be included as diverted. If in addition your facility is buying the wood to use for biomass, I think you would definitely have a case to make. Good luck.
According to LEED interpretationLEED Interpretations are official answers to technical inquiries about implementing LEED on a project. They help people understand how their projects can meet LEED requirements and provide clarity on existing options. LEED Interpretations are to be used by any project certifying under an applicable rating system. All project teams are required to adhere to all LEED Interpretations posted before their registration date. This also applies to other addenda. Adherence to rulings posted after a project registers is optional, but strongly encouraged. LEED Interpretations are published in a searchable database at usgbc.org. #10061- Wood Derived Fuel (WDF) meets the intent of credit MRc2. We would like clarification on the definition of “fuel” for the purposes of LEED. Do the following WDF applications meet the credit intent or is it exclusively wood used as fuel to generate electricity?
- Wood used in kilns to fire clay bricks
- Wood used in boilers to generate hot water and/or steam for industrial processes
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.
In developing countries like Egypt the construction waste management is performed by small traders buying scraps from the contractors to resell it to factories and manufacturers for recycling. Most of these traders are illiterate and have no companies work through. They just make a deal with the contractors to pass by the project site and load specific materials. Consequently, we have no papers record the final destination of any recyclables. All what we have are the permit documents the contractors issued for these traders to allow them to get out the project site with the scraps.
My question is; as the scrap traders have no official company papers and are illiterate has no signature, is it enough to get a confirmation letter from the contractor for the waste types and quantities sold to each trader for recycling?
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.
We recently received this clarification from a reviewer who expressed confusion about the monthly diversion rate backup that we supplied from our receiver for commingled diversion.
"Monthly commingled diversion rates from receivers are often project specific in the reviews I see on a regular basis. Multiplying the monthly percentage of diversion by the weight of the project loads for each month to get the diversion amount to be used for project is not the approach described in the reference guide and has not been called out an alternative compliance approach."
Our projects are mostly urban and rarely have the space for on site source separation, so we almost always use commingled diversion. It's my understanding over 50 certified projects that is exactly how we calculate commingled diversion. By soliciting the monthly diversion rate from the receiver, and then entering that percentage along with the total tonnage for that month to arrive at the percentage diverted for our project that we can claim based on what the receiving facility diverted that month overall.
Since the comment seems in direct opposition to what we've always done and the way we fill out the credit forms, can anyone shed any light on what this reviewer means?
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.
Our projects entire building will be built as modular construction and assembled off-site in Brooklyn and when completed will be transferred to Manhattan. How does this work for the credit? Under FAQ it says not to account for off-site waste and only waste on-site. So does this mean we are not eligible for the credit? I must be missing something. Please help!
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.
LEED AP BD+C, ID+C, O+M, Managing Principal
Earthly Ideas LLC
Reused building components that don’t reach the MRc1.1 or MRc1.2 thresholds may be applied to MRc2 as waste diversion.
If onsite material is being reused but is not being counted toward MRc1 or MRc3, it may count toward MRc2.
Do you know which LEED credits have the most LEED Interpretations and addenda, and which have none? The Missing Manual does. Check here first to see where you need to update yourself, and share the link with your team.
LEEDuser members get it free >
LEEDuser is produced by BuildingGreen, Inc., with YR&G authoring most of the original content. LEEDuser enjoys ongoing collaboration with USGBC. Read more about our team
Copyright 2014 – BuildingGreen, Inc.